1901-04-29

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. lion. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I stated some time ago that I would make an announcement to-day upon the celebration of the 24th of May. The government. I think, is right in assuming that it is the general, if not the unanimous, desire of the people of Canada that the 24tli of May, which has been celebrated as a national holiday, should continue to be so celebrated. I beg, therefore, to move that the order ' that the House resolve itself again into committee on Bill (No. 33) respecting Victoria Day.' be transferred from Public Bills and Orders to Government Orders.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon.. Mr. PRIOR. Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the right lion, leader of the government whether he can inform the House concerning the wrecking of the steamer Willamette, which I brought to his notice last Wednesday. Has the right hon. gentleman any information with regard to the same ?
The PRIME MINISTER.: I regret that I have no information to give to-day, but will take a note of the question, and, perhaps, will have the information to-morrow.



THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 20) respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway.- Mr. Fortin.
Mr. SCOTT.: When the House went into committee on this Bill on Wednesdey evening, the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) asked that it be allowed to stand over, and gave his reasons for his request. He stated that intimation had been received from the Canadian Pacific Railway that before this Bill was put 'through the House, they would agree to build this year sixty miles of the line known as the Great North-west- Central, westward from Brandon. Objection was taken to that course, and to the remarks of the hon. member for Saskatchewan. That hon. gentleman is not present, and I wish to1 ask if the promoter (Mr. Fortin) is prepared to state here whether the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are prepared to consent to such an agree ment. One objection taken to the request that further consideration be postponed, was that the Bill had been adopted by the Railway Committee. It seems to me that such an objection is not well taken. I can quite conceive that a railway Bill might be adopted unanimously by the Railway Corn-


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: mittee and still not meet with the approval of the whole House, and unless the position is taken that the House of Commons is merely a registering body for the Railway Committee, such objection should not prevail against a request for further consideration of any railway measure passed by that committee.
The objection stated by the hon. member for Saskatchewan in this House last Wednesday would have been presented in the Railway Committee were it not for the fact that the time of the committee expired just when the representatives of the Canadian Pacific Railway had agreed to a certain amendment advocated by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary), and the committee then adjourned. There was, therefore, no opportunity then to bring forward any further amendment. The next meeting of the committee was called for the unusual hour of 10.30 instead of 11 o'clock. I am a new member, and have not had the opportunity of attending the Railway Committee before this session, but older members have told me that not for years has that committee been called together before 11 o'clock. Had it not been for the unusual time of meeting, the objection I am about to -present would have been stated to and threshed out before the committee, and in view of the fact that it is merely due to an accident that the matter was not brought before the committee, I think I am perfectly in order in asking its consideration now by the House. What the members from the North-west ask is, not to have any further amendment inserted in the Bill. What we ask is quite in spirit with what was asked by the hon. member for Selkirk, and of the amendment adopted by the Railway Committee at his suggestion. The Canadian Pacific Railway are asking for power to construct 100 miles from Teuton north-westward to the narrows of Lake Manitoba. Before the committee, the hon. member for Selkirk contended that before granting that charter, the company should be compelled to consent to build a certain portion of another branch into another district.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Did that belong to the same line of road ?


Thomas Walter Scott: To some extent. What the members from the North-west asked and what I ask this afternoon is that before this permission is granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway, they shall consent to build sixty miles of the line under the old North-west Central charter. It may be contended that this is in a different part of the country, but I will contend that they are the same people who are asking for this permission as those whom we wish parliament to compel to build sixty miles under the North-west Central charter. The hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) the other

evening contended that what we are asking for in regard to this matter would create a precedent, that it was something that has not been done before in this House. Whether it has been done prior to this session or not, I am not aware. But the action which this session was adopted on the suggestion of my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) is a precedent for the action which I suggest. And. although my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works contended against the view, I think the action taken in connection with the charter granted to the Crow's Nest Southern Railway Company may be held to be a precedent for the action which I ask the House to take. The Crow's Nest Southern charter was before the Railway Committee not many days ago, and tlie committee laid down the principle that these private parties should not be granted the charter until they had agreed to certain provisions in the interests of the people of' Canada. That is exactly what I ask. I ask that this charter should not be granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company until they agree to certain conditions whieli, I contend, are manifestly in the interest of a certain portion of the people of Canada-a large number of the people of the North-west Territories. The country through which the North-west Central road will run, and the present condition of that country were well described by the member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis). Hon. members are aware, I suppose, that the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway almost parallels the Qu'Appelle valley through a portion of the North-west Territories. commencing say, at the Manitoba boundary line, and continuing for some 150 or 200 miles westward to Moosejaw. The road is south of the river at an average distance of about twenty miles. Almost twenty years ago a large number of settlers went into the country north of the Qu'Appelle valley. These people, in the North-west, are strung along from the Manitoba boundary to Long Lake, north of Regina. Fort Qu'Appelle is in that district. Year after year since the Canadian Pacific Railway acquired the North-west Central charter, delegates representing the people in that country have gone to Winnipeg and have endeavoured to prevail upon the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to extend the road and give them the railway communication they need. And year after year, the representatives of the Canadian Pacific Railway have, represented to these people that the company was financially unable to extend the line. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company admit, and will admit to-day, that, as soon as the road is completed through that country, it will be a paying road ; but they say that the people in that district will have to exercise patience until the company becomes financially able to construct the road.


Hon. Mr. HAG  CART@: For how many years have the Canadian Pacific Railway had control of the charter ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I understand, about four years. It was, I think, three years ago this last winter that, travelling westward from Winnipeg, I met gentlemen on the train who were delegates and had been down to Winnipeg to interview the Canadian Pacific Railway officials. I had considerable talk with these delegates, and they explained the situation as I am endeavouring to explain it to the House. They met Mr. Whyte, the general manager, and other repesentatives of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in Winnipeg, and placed the case before them as I have stated it. These representatives of the company said that the company would build the road into that country as soon as it was able to do so. It seems to me an entirely . reasonable proposition that, when the company come here and ask power to construct 100 miles of road into a portion of the country where there are few people and where, so far as I am aware, there is no person particularly anxious to have the road built, we should make it conditional upon the granting of this charter that the company should spend their money first iu the portion of the country where railway communication is very urgently needed. The hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) the other evening read a petition, which I have in my possession, but which 1 will not take the time to read again. He stated, and I believe stated correctly, that at the present time in the district through which the projected North-west Central line runs, there is a production of wheat amounting to about half a millon bushels a year. There is something like 50,000 acres of land under cultivation there, and there are many settlers. All that wheat, or the greater part of it, has to be transported an average distance of 25 or 30 miles. That is not the worst of it, the wheat has to be transported across the Qu'Appelle valley, the banks of which are 240 or 250 feet high. So I say that even if we are creating a precedent in this matter, it is a very good precedent to create.
Now, the hon. Minister of Public Works, the other evening, made some remarks about the general attitude of the North-west members towards the Canadian Pacific Railway to which I wish to refer for a moment. I think it would be unfortunate for the North-west Territories if the impression was allowed to be created in this House that the members from that country were unduly hostile to the Canadian Pacific Railway or were ready to oppose any proposition that the company may bring before parliament. Speaking for myself, I-I was about to say T resent that imputation, but perhaps some more moderate word would be better. However, X do not wish the impression to prevail in this House that I am willing to

take action with regard to any proposition brought before the House by the Canadian Pacific Kailway that would have the effect of denying to that company full and entire justice. X think I am willing at all times to do the company full justice. In proof of that, I can point to my action upon a matter that has been before the House twice already this session, a matter affecting the Canadian Pacific Railway and seriously affecting the North-west Territories and on which strong opinions are held by the people of the North-west Territories. I refer to the Canadian Pacific Railway land tax exemption question. When that matter was brought before parliament in a way which I did not think just to the Canadian Pacific Railway, I did not hesitate to place myself on record in a way which was undoubtedly not in accord with the feeling's of a large majority of my constituents. So I think the Minister of Public Works was not quite just in the remarks he passed respecting the attitude of the North-west members towards the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I am willing at all times to accord to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company a full measure of justice, but when they make propositions before this parliament which I think are not entirely .in the interests of the Northwest people, I am going to retain my liberty to take a stand against such propositions at all times. I think in this proposition now before the House, there is every reason to ask that the action which I suggest this afternoon should be taken, and if the hon. gentleman wlio is promoting this Bill is not prepared to announce that the agreement, which I understand has been given by the Canadian Pacific Railway authorities, will he carried out, then I am going to ask him to defer the consideration of the Bill to a future occasion.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I desire to say at first that when I spoke the other day I did not wish to put an unfair interpretation on the action that had been taken by our friends from the Northwest. I think that in this connection they are going very far indeed. The preamble of this Bill, as all members of the Railway Committee will remember, had been adopted ; there had been a vote, but the preamble of the Bill had been adopted by a majority of seven, therefore the very principle of the Bill had been adopted. Then the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) created a very good impression in favour of his Icelandic friends from Gimli. I was favourably struck by his appeal, and both the Minister of Railways and myself agreed that the Canadian Pacific Railway could properly be asked to extend twenty miles further this year a line that they had started building, and of which they had built, I think, twenty miles. It was unanimously resolved to adopt an amendment making a condition for the granting of this charter that the Mr. SCOTT.
Canadian Pacific Railway should build twenty miles more this year. That was agreed to unanimously, and the Bill was voted by the House. Now, my hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) came up the other day and asked that a new condition be put into tbe Bill, namely, that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company should he obliged to build sixty miles of a railway m another direction. Now, I know there are some hon. gentlemen from Quebec who are anxious to see the Canadian Pacific Railway build branch lines in their! constituencies, my hon. friend from Lahelle (Mr. Bou-rassa) for one. I know that he and some others have pressed us very hard to use our influence with the Canadian Pacific Railway to get them to build branch lines. Suppose some of those hon. gentlemen should rise in their seats and say : Before this charter is granted the Canadian Pacific Railway must build a branch in my riding. We sympathize deeply with our friends, but is it a fair precedent to ask this House to adopt . Of course they will realize immediately that instead of promoting the object they have in view they would simply defeat it. Perhaps they would permit me! to say that the Canadian Pacific Railway have never given any specific pledge that they would build tliis sixty miles. I know that communications have taken place since we met the other day. This morning I saw Mr. Drinkwater, who is acting president, and he told me that their intention was to build that Great North-west line as soon as they could. Explorations are'not yet completed, and it is not fair to ask them to bind themselves in the Bill to do so. Of course I do not speak for the Canadian Pacific Railway here, I happen to live in Montreal, and am not in very close touch with them. But Mr. Drinkwater stated to me this morning that he has understood from Mr. Shaugh-hessy that they would build that line as soon as possible. But the surveys are not completed and they cannot consent that that clause be inserted in the Bill. I think with this explanation our friends could allow the Bill to pass.
Ml-. MeCREARY. In regard to this Bill, I am sorry indeed to have to disagree somewhat with my colleagues from the west. The history of the Bill is this, so far as I can recollect. The first Bill that the Canadian Pacific Railway submitted to the committee was a Bill asking for five years in which to complete the North-west Central road, without any condition and1 without promising any extension of that road this year. That Bill was introduced, I believe, by tlie hon. member for Provencher (Mr. LaRiviOre). Tbe Minister of Railways and Canals, the hon. member for Western Assiniboia (Mr. Scott), myself and others spoke upon the subject, and the Bill was finally referred to a snb-committee, which brought in a report by which the company was bound to complete twenty miles this

year, and to have tlie time for completion of the road limited to three years instead of five, so that the Bill as brought in by the Canadian Pacific Railway was materially changed. I supposed that the Bill was at an end at that time. It was taken into consideration in the committee, as it should have been taken into consideration now, that the Canadian Pacific Railway are being punished for a sin, probably, that they did not commit. The Canadian Pacific Railway have only had that charter three or four years at the outside ; prior to that time, and when the whole dereliction of duty took place, it was in the hands of the Great North-west Central road, so that the Canadian Pacific Railway had not exercised very much delay in the construction of the Northwest Central. I submit that if there was any argument why sixty miles of an exten-tion should be asked, it should have been made either on that Bill or on some other Bill relating to that portion of the country, such as the Saskatchewan and Western, where they were granted an extension of time. That is the occasion upon which the sixty miles should have been demanded by the members from the west. But having been dealt with by the committee and that Bill having passed the House after coming from the committee, I submit it is now at an end.
Now, with regard to this particular Bill which I speak of, and the amendment which was inserted at my suggestion, the line lies In the same territory, it is part of the same line that Bill (No. 26) covers. When they asked for a charter from Teulon in a northwesterly direction to Sifton's Landing, I brought to the attention of the committee the fact that 6,000 or 7,000 Icelandic settlers who had gone in there on the west side of Lake Winnipeg in October, 1875, had been promised by the then government a railway, and this was a condition of their settling there. But they have never yet had any railway, the excuse given being that it was timber land, that it was a difficult country in which to make a road, that there was no prairie land. Consequently these Icelandic settlers have not been able to clear up and cultivate their farms because they have not been able to get a road, and the timber would not pay them to clear up the land. With the assistance of the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Railways and Canals, we got the Canadian Pacific Railway to consent to a clause that the road from Teulon to Sifton's Landing should not be constructed until they had built a certain portion of the line towards the Icelandic settlement. I submit that in the amendment to the Bill, the town of Gimli should not be stated, it should, if possible, be to the Icelandic river, or to a point thirty miles north of Teulon ; that would not take it up to the Icelandic river, but sufficiently far to be considerably useful. AVhile I would be pleased to assist the members for Saskatchewan and Assiniboia in their commendable efforts, I do not think this is the proper time for bringing up that matter. They might almost as well say to the Canadian Pacific Railway : You shall not build this road from Teulon to Sifton's Landing or up to the Icelandic settlements until you have constructed an elevator at Fort William, or a wharf somewhere in Nova Scotia. One matter does not agree with! the other matter, they are not on all fours. Next year when this Bill comes before the House for another extension, or the year after, I will be willing to put up as good a fight as any one for the settlers in the Qu'Appelle valley. But, I submit, that just now, it is not proper for parliament to compel the Canadian Pacific Railway to do something for which they are not guilty, and in the second place I submit that the time is not opportune.


Mr. DOUGLAS.: Mr. Speaker, as representing East Assiniboia, through which this proposed extension of the Great North-west Central passes from the entire east to the west, it may be naturally taken for granted that personally I am largely interested, not only because I represent the people who are urgently in need of a railway, but, even from a personal standpoint, having invested as far back as 1883, and wanting that railway all these years, I am certainly very urgently desirous of pressing upon the House the importance of compelling the building of this road at the earliest possible date. I feel somewhat in a peculiar position in connection with this proposal of my neighbour the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott), for the reason that I was a member of the sub committee of the Railway Committee that came to a conclusion as to what should be done during the present year with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I personally agreed to the finding, and supported it. Therefore, the objection might be taken against anything I might projjose here, that, having'agreed to a thing, I should not fall back from it. Well, I wish to impress upon the House the fact that there is perhaps no district more urgently needing a railway than the colonies along the north side of the Qu'Appelle river. I wish to state that since this Great North-west Central Bill passed the Railway Committee I have had communications from the Swedish colony demanding a reply ' yes ' or ' no ' as to the building of this road. These settlers stated that they had resolved by resolution in a public meeting duly called that they would leave the results of their labour for eighteen years, and seek to make their homes somewhere else. That fact alone ought to be taken into consideration. If we are spending money for immigration purposes and endeavouring to bring people to our country, it is of importance that we should give them the condition of success. I have read articles in the newspapers headed in this way: ' Betrayed and victimized,' and then

under that heading giving the treatment that the people have received, and commenting upon this treatment as against the government. When one is aware of the condition, when you know that these people have for nineteen years been waiting for a railway, that they have been losing about 14 cents on every bushel of grain they have marketed, that they have patiently gone forward doing their best, it is evident that no stone ought to be left unturned by this government to get them this railway extension at the earliest possible date. We have urged it upon the Canadian Pacific Railway, we have sent in petitions until the hearts of the people are sick preparing petitions. I have taken the trouble of going to Montreal and talking this matter over with the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and to urge it upon Sir William Van Horne. We have discussed it. It is no use to tell us that the Canadian Pacific Railway are not able to build that road, when they come forward with a Bill, as in this case, and propose to build a road where there is no population, which goes through a country in which there is no one calling for a road, while here we have a populated district through which this proposed extension of the Great North-west Central would go for its entire length. It would be amusing perhaps if I read to the House the beautiful words that are recorded in these pamphlets in reference to Assiniboia, the very distinct through which this road is to pass. I might make a very good argument on them. If the government give to the world such a statement in reference to the character of the country and its hopes, why do they not also state that it is without railways, and that the people have suffered severely for want of railway facilities ? It is true that we have the prospects of probably getting 40 miles of railway built this year, but we ought to have 100 miles of railway built this year. While it would be inconsistent for me. having agreed to the other proposal when this Bill passed the Railway Committee a few days ago, to urge this strongly, yet, I do seek here and now to impress upon the House that this is a case where the government ought to step in and say to the Canadian Pacific Railway, or any other railway company, that when it is proposed to spend money in opening up a country where there is no settlement, it is in the interest of the government, and in the interest of the country that the people who have been settled for eighteen or nineteen years should be the first to have their wants attended to. That is the point that I desire especially to enforce. I need not dwell upon it at length. I spoke at length in the Railway Committee on this question not long ago, but, I would wish, before sitting down, to allude to the feeling against the Canadian Pacific Railway on the part of North-west members. I do not think it is in the minds of the North-west members, Mr. DOUGLAS.
but it is in the minds of the people they represent, and as I have told the Canadian Pacific Railway In their, own office, it is as much as a member's political head is worth to say a word in their favour in the west. It is just as well that the House should know that, and if they wish another condition of things to be brought about, they should adopt a new policy to meet the wishes of the people, to develop the country and seek to give them such railway facilities as the country demands. The feeling exists against the Canadian Pacific Railway, and there is no use of hiding it. It is strong, and members must necessarily speak the minds of the people they represent when they come before the House. Therefore, I would impress upon the government, at least, to give the people that we have brought into the country, who have been in the country facing difficulties and passing through the hardships of early settlement, the conditions of success, including railway facilities at the earliest possible date.


Mr. OLIVER.: I do not wish to delay the House, but I wish to allude to the general question that is involved in this discussion. There are some important particulars in connection with this North-west Central Railway, and with the request that is being urged upon the House to compel the building of the road under the charter that I think should be emphasized. This is one of the most important charters that exists in the western country. It was a charter that was granted in the early days for the construction of a parallel, competing line with the Canadian Pacific Railway from end to end of the country. As a result of the granting of that charter, settlement went in along its proposed line. It is because of the existence of the charter, rather than merely the capabilities of the country, that these settlers are along that line today. When this parliament grants a charter, if it means anything, it means that there is an understanding that that charter shall be built under. This parliament, I say, is in the position of having been a party to a distinct breach of faith, if not the principal party to a distinct breach of faith as between the settlers of that district and this railway.
The condition is entirely different from that suggested by the Minister of Public Works in the case of a district in eastern Canada. He said : There are many places in eastern Canada which call for branches of the Canadian Pacific Railway. That is true. But there are not many places in eastern Canada where the Canadian Pacific Railway own a charter which has been in existence for twenty years, where the people went in and settled in the country because of the existence of that charter, expecting the line to be continued, but with reference to which charter the Canadian Pacific Railway have so far failed to build their line. These conditions here are spe-

eial and peculiar. There are many places in the North-west where railroads are required ; there are many places where they are desired ; there are many places where charters are held ; but there is no place in the North-west where the conditions are as they are along the line of the North-west Central Railway. Now, a word as to the propriety of using what might be called coercion upon the railway company to compel it to give accommodation to these people. It is argued that because the locality mentioned in the present Bill is distant from the scene of the operations of the Northwest Central charter, that therefore there is no connection between the two. It makes no difference how distant the field is, the company is the same. We find that this company does not fail to exercise its influence in Manitoba at one end, and in British Columbia at the other end, nor yet in the North-west Territories between. If it is competent for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to interfere with competitive enterprises in Manitoba, in the North-west Territories, and in British Columbia, it is just as competent for this parliament to compel the Canadian Pacific Railway Company when making over to it power to build, as has already been said, through an unknown as well as uninhabited country ; it is competent for this parliament that when the company is asking for this power, and before it is granted this power it shall be compelled to carry out engagements which have been entered into on its behalf by this parliament-and on its own behalf with this parliament-with the people of the western country in whatever part they may be, or in the eastern country, if you like, if the conditions are the same.
The question to my mind is this : Are we to consider the interests of the people of the North-west, or are we to consider the convenience of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company ? I understand, and I wish to suggest to this House, that the interests of the people of the North-west are very much more important to the general welfare of Canada, and are very much more worthy of the consideration of this House, and very much more worthy of support by means of legislation on the part of this House, than are the interests of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, great though these interests are, and important though they are to this whole country. I had occasion to point out to this House some time ago, that it is upon the further development of the western country that the prosperity of this Dominion of Canada depends That proposition, I think, will not be challenged at this time and under these circumstances. Then, if the prosperity of the Dominion, the aggrandizement and enlargement of our manufacturing enterprises, and the enlargement of our wholesale inward and outward trade ; if these depend upon the further and continued development of the North-west; I say that on such an occasion as this where a vast area of the most magnificent country in the North-west, already peopled, is concerned, such a question is worthy of the most careful consideration of this House and well worthy of its consideration over and above, and far and above the interests of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The House must come to some conclusion upon this Bill, and the question before the House is : Whether or not this Bill, which provides for the construction of, I presume, an important piece of railway in one section of the North-west Territories, is to be passed or not. The matter has been investigated by the Railway Committee, and for my part I see no reason to depart from the rule which I have invariably followed, that whenever a matter has been threshed out before the Railway Committee and the Railway Committee has come to a conclusion-not necessarily a unanimous conclusion, because we cannot expect that-but when the Railway Committee has come to a conclusion, that conclusion ought to be supported by the House unless a very strong case be made out to the contrary. So far as I understand, the reasons advanced against this Bill are not against the merit of the Bill itself. It is not pretended that this road would not be useful.
It is not pretented that the road would not seiwe a good purpose, but the argument advanced is that this Bill should not be passed unless another important section of the country should also be served with a railway. In other words, the argument of my hon. friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) and my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) is this : While we do not pretend that this road may not be a good one, yet we do not want this section of the country to be served by a railway unless we are also served by another railway in another section of the country. This railway may be a benefit to the people, Dut these . hon. gentlemen argue that it shall not be chartered unless they get another railway which would also benefit the people. They say : We have been suffering from want of railway communication and unless we have railway communication ourselves we want the people in another section of the country to suffer as we do. That is hardly a fair argument to present to this House. It seems to me that our friends from the North-west Territories who represent a section of the country which has suffered for the want of adequate railway communication, should have some sympathy for other people who are suffering likewise. So far from preventing this railway from being built, they ought, in my opinion say : Well, let this road be built and let some effort be made to have the Northwest Central Railway built also. In my

opinion, by far the best course to follow, would be to allow this Bill to proceed and at the same time to make the best efforts possible to cause the other railway to be built also. I sympathize deeply with my kon. friends from Assiniboia and Alberta. I understand not only the advantage but the necessity of railway communication to the settlers, and I am not without hope that the Canadian Pacific Railway will be prepared to make some announcement upon this matter perhaps during the course of the present session.


Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).: I wish to endorse very strongly the facts and the views which were put before the committee by the hon. member from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) with regard to the length of time this charter has been in force without being carried to completion, and with regard especially to the fact that a great many settlers went into that country eighteen or twenty years ago in the expectation of having this railway built. From time to time during the last five or six sessions, when this question has been before the House, an effort, has been made to compel the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (into whose hands the charter has fallen) to extend that road in order to furnish railway accommodation for the benefit of the settlers.. We attempted at least on one occasion a little coercion in the matter, and the House will probably remember that that coercive policy which we adopted resulted in the extension of the railway by at least twenty miles. The argument which the right hon. gentleman who leads the House has made must necessarily have a great effect on the members of this House, because it is logical, strong and conclusive. But, we are up against this position in the North-west : we want that road extended, and the point is, how are we going to get it ? I have a good deal of sympathy with the position which the North-west members take, that it is desirable to use the club. They could probably prevent this Bill going through, and in that way force the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to extend that line where it is very much needed. It seems to me that it would pay the company to build that extension of the North-west Central, whereas I do not see how they can derive one penny's advantage from the construction of the line along the shore of Lake Manitoba up to Sifton's Landing, because I do not think there are many settlers there. The suggestion I would make would be that the right hon. the premier might consult with the authorities of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and endeavour to induce them to agree to a compromise in the form of a reasonable extension of the road, with a view to meeting the unanimous wish of the people of that district. It would be better for the people of the country, and better for the Canadian Pacific Railway itself, which one member was perfectly correct


Wilfrid Laurier: in stating has become very unpopular in that country because of its policy. It is to suggest some such compromise that I intervene in the discussion at the present time.


Mr. MACLEAN.: There are two propositions before the House, and the Canadian Pacific Railway is father of them both. When the company comes with a new proposition, parliament is quite justified in saying, we proxiose to hold over this second prop'osition until you tell us what you have done with the first. It is well within the province of parliament to try to have this grievance of those North-west people removed, and to ask the Canadian Pacific Railway to give a reason for building a railway where it is not required, and refusing to build one to a part of the country where it is urgently required, and where, if it is mot built, the people threaten to leave Canada. We do not want that. There is only one way to air these grievances ; that is, to appeal to parliament, and use a club if necessary. But, every time an appeal is made to parliament to remedy a grievance from the North-west, it is sidetracked by one excuse or another. Parliament is the place to air and to rectify these grievances, and I am going to preach that doctrine as long as I am here. If you give the company everything they demand and ask for nothing in return, they will own the country, and do what they like. When parliament gives the company something, it should get something in return for the people. Here is an opportunity for making a strong representation, even to Mr. Drinkwater, who, I am glad to say, is now acting as president while the chief is away, to get two roads built this summer instead of one. It is to assist the people of the Northwest in getting their grievance righted that I am adding my word to-day, and I hope the right hon. premier will ask Mr. Drinkwater," before he leaves town, to agree that the company shall build twenty miles of this road during the present year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I beg to assure my hon. friends from the North-west that those of us who support the Bill as it is amended, are not acting for the Canadian Pacific Railway, but are quite as independent of the Canadian Pacific Railway as these hon. gentlemen themselves.


Frank Oliver: I hope nothing personal was understood from my remarks, because I did not wish to convey any such meaning.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I wish to emphasize that, because we have heard a good deal of it in former times. Our friends in the North-west, worthy of sympathy as they are, must not forget that their country is not the whole of Canada. They are sending us good men, and their com try is a very important part of Canada, we all recognize that; but, there are large
S997	APRIL 29, 1901	3998
sections in the eastern provinces which the Canadian Pacific Railway has not yet been able to serve. It would be a great pity if at any time this country were divided into sections, the east against the west, and I think that I am giving fair advice to my North-west friends in asking them not to create such an impression. The older provinces are ready to do anything they can ; hut, our friends must not forget that we have some little rights ourselves. 1 have endeavoured, with several other members of parliament, to use all the influence we could in order to induce the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to build branch railways in Ontario and Quebec, but we have not been able to do so. The Canadian Pacific Railway is a great corporation, but it has large interests to serve, and we cannot forget that it has to serve Canada as a whole. It is not to build branch lines altogether in the west, and at the same time neglect the east. I think, from the conversations I have had with the Canadian Pacific Railway people, that they are going to build that North-west Central line as soon as it is possible to do so.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the government not try to use its .good offices to get them to build it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend knows that there are in the province of Ontario large sections of country which want to be served by the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railways, and which these companies are not serving to-day. I am prepared, speaking for myself, to go far in assisting the people in the west. In fact, parliament has been asked this year to do a great many things for the west; but, speaking in the most friendly way, and with the best disposition towards my friends in the west, I say that they should not insist on what they ask now.


Mr. BOURASSA.: If the principle is to be adopted, that a private Bill relating to a certain branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway is to be used to compel the company to build another branch, then, I have an amendment ready to add to this Bill; because there is a branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway extending 100 miles north of Montreal, through the old county of Terrebonne, and touching the county of Labelle, which was chartered twenty-five years ago, and has been heavily subsidized both by the Dominion and the province, and is not yet built. The charter was handed over to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and subsidies were voted to that line by this parliament two years ago. If it were built, it would develop a new section of the province of Quebec, a section in which there have been settlers for twenty-five years. If the Canadian Pacific Railway could be forced to build that branch, I would be glad to see it done ; but, as the representative of the county of Labelle, I would be ashamed
to ask for it as a condition to giving authority to build another branch. Even if I lost votes, I would not do that, because we must have some respect for the procedure of parliament.


Frank Oliver: I must say I think the hon. member for Labelle has made out a very good ease. It is quite a fair question for this parliament to consider how long we should allow railway companies to hold charters and subsidies without building the lines. Our contention is that the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other railway company shall not be allowed to hold a charter unless it builds under it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: How long have they held this charter ?


Frank Oliver: About four years. I wish to point out that a railway company acquired the charter twenty years ago, and that subsequently the Canadian Pacific Railway acquired this charter from the other railway company, subject to all the latter's rights and privileges and liabilities, and it will not do for the Canadian Pacific Railway to say that they are only responsible for the time elapsed since they became the owners. When they acquired the charter, they became responsible for the time elapsed since the beginning.
This is one of the roads which are subsidized out of the lands of the North-west, and that subsidy has been paid by the North-west ever since it was first chartered. That is to say, the odd-numbered sections of land in the North-west have been held reserved from sale and settlement in order to meet the land grant to this and other similar roads. In all fairness, a road which was chartered twenty years ago, which was acquired four years ago by a company competent to build it, subject to the rights and liabilities which accrued during the preceding years-a road whose subsidy was practically paid twenty years ago by the North-west-is in a little different position from any other in the Dominion.


Robert Lorne Richardson: With regard to the North-west Central. I understand that the company applied for an extension this session. What was the application ?


James Moffat Douglas: The Bill asked for an extension of five years in which to begin to build, and the company made no proposition to build at all. Their application was strongly opposed, and I spoke very strongly on the matter, and at length. Then the Railway Committee appointed a sub-committee, and that committee met a representative of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and we agreed unanimously that the Canadian Pacific Railway should build at least what their charter called for, namely, 25 miles each year. The Canadian Pacific Railway, in making this agreement, arranged that they might possibly build 40 miles this

coming summer, and build 00 miles within the three years.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The survey is not yet completed.


James Moffat Douglas: They are going on with the building of the Great North-west Central according to agreement with the subcommittee, which agreement was accepted unanimously by the Railway Committee. That is the reason why I could not urge strongly to-day the claim now made, though I am second to none in my desire to push the construction of this road at the earliest possible date.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The explanation of the hou. member for East Assiniboia somewhat alters the case.


Thomas Walter Scott: It seems to me that what the hon. gentleman from East Assiniboia has said simply strengthens the case. The Canadian Pacific Railway came down to parliament this session and asked for an extension for five years, and for what reason ? Because they were financially unable to go on and build ; but since this agreement was arrived at with the sub-committee, they come before us and ask power to spend money in building another section of road in another section of country which no one is asking for.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The hon. member for East Assiniboia did not make that explanation. I understood that the Canadian Pacific Railway were carrying out in good faith the arrangement made with the sub-committee.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So they are.
M. SCOTT : But they have given us new light on the subject. We have further information as to the financial ability of the company. Since this arrangement was arrived at with the sub-committee, the company appear able financially to construct 100 miles from Teulon to Lake Manitoba. The right hon. the First Minister made reference to the importance of this proposed Teulon branch, and I wish to say that I fully admit the force of the remarks made by him, but I would point out this-


Robert Lorne Richardson: Did the company say they were financially unable to build more than 25 miles of that road ? I wish the committee to distinctly understand that I am in no way receding from the position I took when I spoke first, and I desire, with all the strength at my disposal, to join the North-west members in having the extension of this railway built, more especially because of the point brought out by the hon. member for Alberta. This company has a most valuable line grant of 6,400 acres per mile, and has hail it for twenty years. There is no good land in the whole of the North-west Territories to-


James Moffat Douglas: day which is not worth at least $3 an acre, and the average price at which lands are sold by the railway company will be more than that. Three dollars an acre on 6,400 acres per mile will give from $19,000 to $20,000 per mile, representing the subsidy for the construction of that road.	I do not think that
the road itself, constructed as railways are on the prairie at present, will cost equipped more than $10,000 per mile, and that being so, I would urge on the government the desirability of pressing on the Canadian Pacific Railway the necessity of extending that road.


James Moffat Douglas: My impression is that the land grant has lapsed, and they really have no land grant.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I understood that the renewal of the charter carried with it the land grant.


James Moffat Douglas: No.


Robert Lorne Richardson: What subsidy then did the hon. member for Alberta refer to ?


James Moffat Douglas: They have no land grant.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Then I shall
have to withdraw my remarks in that regard.


Frank Oliver: I am glad to be corrected if I am mistaken, but they certainly did hold the grant many years ; and if it has lapsed, it is only within a very recent period. I would be very glad if it has.


Mr. LOGAN.: The question whether they have the land grant is of the utmost importance, and possibly we might let the matter stand over until we find out. But if they have the land grant, though I would be sorry to do anything to deprive the settlers of the railway, I think this is a most dangerous precedent we are endeavouring to set. In the Railway Committee the other day, the preamble was adopted, after full discussion, by a good majority. After that, without force, the Canadian Pacific Railway agreed, at the request of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary), to build a road into the Gimli territory. Now on the second reading of the Bill, the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr Scott) comes and says: We have got so much ; but we will ride this willing horse to death by asking still more, by demanding that the company build in another part of the country. And the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), on the same principle can say: You must build another road in my constituency. If all the members in whose constituencies the Canadian Pacific Railway runs demand of their representative that before he votes in favour of any proposal made by the Canadian Pacific Railway in this House, the company shall build branch lines in their consti tuenei es-
-APKIL 29, 1901
Mr. OLIVER, And why not, if they are under obligation to build them ?


Hance James Logan: Supposing that a member of this House goes to the Canadian Pacific Railway and says :	I demand that you
build a railway to a certain point in my constituency


Frank Oliver: Excuse me, but, in cases where they hold charters why should they not build under them before they get more charters ?


Hance James Logan: In other words, wherever the Canadian Pacific Railway have a charter, it is quite immaterial whether that road is going' to pay a dollar or whether


Robert Lorne Richardson: What did they get the charter for, if not to build a railway ?


Hance James Logan: The fact that they have a charter does not preclude anybody else from getting a charter. But it is a monstrous proposition that a company, because they hold a charter shall be compelled to build whether the road is likely to pay or not.


Frank Oliver: For what purpose, then, are railway charters got-to build railways or to prevent the building of railways ?


Hance James Logan: That question would arise if another company were asking for a charter and we refused it. But we should not force them to build a road regardless of whether it will pay or not.


Frank Oliver: I can only say that it is not the rule to grant charters where a previous company has a charter over the same ground.


Mr. McCREARV.: I am surprised at the position taken by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver). It is only the other day that he stood godfather to a Bill to charter a line to build to James Bay, which was being promoted by a gentleman by the name of Harvey. He wanted not only a charter to James Bay, where there were two charters granted already, one of which had been granted to himself and sold by him for a fabulous sum of money, but also a charter from the edge of Hudson's Bay at Chesterfield Inlet right across to the Mackenzie River basin-a line that will not be built foi a thousand years, for there is nobody there, never was and never will be. I am surprised that the hon. member for Alberta should come in and commence to lecture hon. members after the position he took with regard to that matter. This whole question was threshed out thoroughly in committee. I put up as hard a fight as I could with the hon. gentleman for the benefit of the people in the Qu'Appelle valley. The matter was referred to a sub-committee and they reported and I submit that the matter is at an end. I trust that this Bill will be allowed to go through. I have [DOT]lust one amendment to suggest, and that 126
is, that Icelandic River should be substituted for Gimli as the place to which the road is to be built. This change would make very little difference as the two places are near together, and I believe that the Canadian Pacific Railway would as soon build to Icelandic River as to Gimli.


Thomas Walter Scott: I fear the debate is drifting away from the real question at issue. To the question that was asked by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson), as to the reason advanced by the company in support of their request for five years' extension of time for the building of this road, I am not able to give the hon. gentleman an answer. If there is any person in the House who is prepared to speak for the Company, I would like to hear what the reason was, for I cannot conceive of any reason for such a course except that which I have stated-that the company are financially unable to go on with the building of the road. For the benefit of my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan), who, probably, has not been in the House all the afternoon, I might repeat-


Hance James Logan: I have been here all afternoon, and I was in committee too.


Thomas Walter Scott: Well, I will repeat for the benefit of the hon. gentleman what I said before, that the statement made by the Canadian Pacific Railway to the delegates from the district north of the Qu'Appelle valley is, that they admit that from the very first day this line is built it will be a paying road. There are many settlers there; the production of wheat reaches about half a million bushels a year, and the people have about fifty thousand acres under cultivation and probably under crop at this moment.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And the company is building the road ?


Thomas Walter Scott: They have undertaken to build twenty miles this year, but that is a very small portion considering that the people there have been waiting nineteen years to get this railway communication. Now, as to another remark of the hon. Minister of Public Works, I would be the last to wish any harm to come to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I believe that the interests of Canada are largely bound up with those of that company, and if that is the fact, then the interests of the North-west are even more closely bound up with those of the Canadian Pacific Railway. As a representative of the Northwest I should be very sorry to see any unjust demand made upon the Canadian Pacific Railway or anything done that would be harmful to their interest. But, when they come here asking for privileges and concessions, I submit, the members of this House have every right to look seriously into their demands and see if the interests of the Dominion are going to be



detrimentally affected, and I say that tlie interests of the people north of the Qu'-Appelle valley, who are represented by my hon. friend from Bast Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) and myself will be detrimentally affected If the company be permitted to build through that part of the country where, my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) himself admits there are few settlers. If the company spend money in building-


Mr. CLANCY.: What money does the hon. gentleman refer to ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Money to be used in building from Teulon to the Narrows of Lake Manitoba.


James Clancy: Whose money is it ?


Thomas Walter Scott: The money of the Canadian Pacific Railway corporation, the company that applies for the charter to build this road. If they use their money in building that hundred miles of road, they will not have money to extend the North-west Central. Now, one of the reasons why 1 would like to get delay in this matter is that I understand intimation was given by a prominent officer of the Canadian Pacific Railway-no less prominent than the president himself before he left Montreal for Bug-laud the other day-that is, if this Rill was allowed to pass, he would undertake that the sixty miles that we are talking about should be built this year. All I ask is that the Bill be delayed a day or two until the gentleman to whom intimation was given is in his place and is prepared, as I believe he will be, to state that If this Bill is adopted the people north of the Qu'-Appelle valley will be given the extension of sixty miles. I suggest that the Bill be allowed to go through the committee stage, but that the third reading be held over until the next occasion when private Bills come before the House.


Mr. FORTIN.: I can tell the hon. gentleman'that I have inquired, since the Bill came up, from Mr. Drinkwater, Who is the acting president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, whether such an intimation had been given as that to which the hon. gentleman refers. He tells me that no such promise has been made, no such intimation has been given, but that the company are ready to proceed with the construction of the North-west Central road as rapidly as possible, and they expect to build forty miles of the road during the coming summer.


Thomas Walter Scott: My authority for the statement is not present. I think that no leal harm will be done if the Bill is allowed to stand until Wednesday night.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) has surely done enough posing for his constituency


Frank Oliver: I rise to a point of order.


Thomas Walter Scott: 


John Graham Haggart: I am perfectly in order. Here is a Bill for the purpose of building a railway from a place called Teulon to a place called Gimli, or some other place in the neighbourhood, 100 miles ot railway. When this Bill is passed without a single objection to the principle, without any fault found as to the construction of this line of railway, this hon. gentleman wants to tack on an obligation to build a portion of another railway, a railway which was fully considered before the committee, and to which a charter was given on condition that certain things should be performed, it I remember rightly, the building of twenty miles of railway each year for three years in succession. That was the bargain solemnly passed in this House ; and does the hon. gentleman think he is doing anything else but posing ? Why does he not give notice of an amendment ? If he is serious, why does he not follow the rules of the House and give notice of an amendment ? He could not make an amendment if he wished it. He has to be content with a promise by some one that it is to be delayed for a week or two, he is content if some one shall "*et up in this Housd and make a promise that at some time the charter rights which they have under the North-west Central Railway shall be accompanied with a promise to build thirty or forty miles more. If he was in earnest in seeking the interests of his constituents he would have given notice of an amendment, and he would have pressed it to a division. That is the reasoD why I say the hon. gentleman is doing nothing but posing. This Bill is for the purpose of building a railroad in a direction entirely different from the one which he proposes to build, and he asks that there shall be tacked on to it an amendment, or that a promise shall be given, that thirty or forty miles of another railway shall be built. The Minister of Public Works said he had a railroad down in Quebec to be built, some one in Halifax wants a wharf built. I know that in my section of the country there are railroads that require to be built, and that are more in the interests of the community at large than this particular railway the hon. gentleman advocates. I might as well get up and ask this committee that before this Bill passes there should be tacked on to it as a condition, without even a notice of an amendment, some statement by the promoter that in my section of the country this particular railway shall be built. That would be sufficient for my purpose. No solemnity in the shape of an Act of parliament is required, no amendment is required, nothing but a conversation, or a word passed in the committee, a simple promise by some one which will enable me to go and pose before my constituents and to say that before an expenditure can be made in another part of the country I have the promise of a promoter of a Bill that a certain sum of money shall be expended in my section.


Thomas Walter Scott: Will the hon. member support such an amendment as he outlines ?


John Graham Haggart: 1 have a right to a full consideration of any amendment the hon. gentleman proposes. He should give notice of it, and it should be on the Order paper. I want to see the wording of it, and then I will be prepared to express my opinion of it.


Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).: The hon. gentleman from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has had a slap at the wharfs in Halifax. I do not know what connection they have with the Canadian Pacific Railway in the Northwest. i Perhaps, however, he feels his sympathies excited because the wharfs in Halifax, which are under the Railway Department, were burned down when he was Minister of Railways and Canals.


Mr. BOYD.: This question is well worthy the earnest attention of this committee. As has been said here, the company that preceded the Canadian Pacific Railway has had a charter for twenty years. X remember well, years ago, being one of a deputation that waited on the government of the day in the interests of these very people. We were then seeking further aid for that company to enable them to construct that road. I remember the argument was used with regard to the settlers. We said : There are settlers in that district who were brought in there by the pledges and promises of your immigration officers, and the late lamented Sir John Thompson said : That is the one conclusive argument you have produced to-night. Now, Sir, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has procured that charter, and their aim is and has been to procure every charter between the Red river and the Rocky Mountains, and that is what the people of the North-west and Manitoba are opposed to. They are opposed to assisting in the construction of a railroad where there are no people to be benefited by it; and when the Canadian Pacific Railway come to this House and ask the people of the Northwest, who know the position of these settlers, to support a railway scheme and record their votes in favour of it, is there anything wrong about these men standing up and pointing out what they think is in the interests of these unfortunate settlers ? The hon. member for Lanark says that the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) should propose an amendment. My hon. friend from Assiniboia is a new member in this House, and men older in parliamentary experience than himself are probably ignorant of all the rules. But the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are asking for a charter for a line in a territory where there are no settlers who want to be benefited by it : they were met in the committee with a proposition that the railroad should be built to another portion of the territory, and that 1264
was conceded. Now my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) was so successful that he thinks he will have a few more miles tacked on, and his amendment is no different from the one proposed by the member for Assiniboia. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to introduce any new precedent or do anything that will seem like a hardship to that railroad. X have been a friend of the Canadian Pacific Railway ever since I entered public life, and very often to my own political detriment. It is true, as has been stated by the hon. member for Eastern Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas), that it is about as much as a man's political life is worth in the North-west to advocate the interests of that Railway Company. For my part, from this time onward, while I am a member of this House, when this company or any other- company from the Northwest comes here seeking a new charter for building a road where there are no people to benefit by it, and holding charters that they are not actively endeavouring to complete, and as in this case that are urgently needed, those railway companies may look for my opposition.


William Findlay Maclean: I want the members from thei North-west to understand that as soon as they bind themselves together and stand together in this House they will get their grievances in the North-west remedied, and not before. There) is only one way to remedy them, and that is why parliamentary tactics like these are adopted here to-day. I like to hear the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) lecture this House on the right way to introduce a measure, and how to rectify a grievance, but there is only one way, and that is pub-' lie agitation on the floors of parliament. If these hon. members from the North-west have substantial grievances now is the time to bring them forward. Get together and they will have them rectified. Let them make a proposition, but they must not put party before their professions. They have to come here as representing the people of the North-west and not the rag-tail of the Grit party.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Findlay Maclean: Now is the time to have this question fought out, and I want [DOT] to fight alongside of the North-west men. I am prepared to stand up against any party in dealing with this railway question. If the North-west members will only get together, if eight members will stand up, eight members can have justice done. There have not been eight members from the North-west standing up for this question to-day. We have had more get up to-day than for a long while, but if the whole of the North-west members would stand together the grievances of that country would be redressed. Every alternate block of land in the North-west Territories is tied up to some railway proposition, but these railway

propositions are not going ahead and the settlement of the country is not going ahead. We are wondering why we have no new provinces in that country, why we have not four Manitobas instead of one. There is something wrong and the cure of that wrong is in this House. The cure of it is in agitation by hon. members from that country standing up together and battling for the rights of the west. If they will only come to 'the issue I will be only too glad to join with them and make an issue of this question. There are other hon. members on this side of the House who will do the same thing. In a year or two we will have a great many of these grievances rectified, and, most of all, the great grievance that was ventilated here the other day, that of the exemption of land held by the Canadian Pacific Railway in the North-west Territories. I hope the government will reconsider the question of referring it to the courts.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Flinty. Order.


William Findlay Maclean: This is in order. It is in connection with the railway question in the North-west. I have made my point anyway. There has to be a party in this House to take up this railway question. It must not be composed of either of the two political parties, but it must be a party of those who are determined to agitate these grievances and to stand together until they are remedied. I am not going to take my ideas of the parliamentary tactics that I should adopt from the doctrines laid down by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart) and the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), because that is the way they jolly every question along. I have seen these questions jollied from year to year when they come forward. It is a question of holding up any Bill if it is necessary in order to have justice done. I am certain a good impression will be given by me to Mr. Drinkwater, if he is within hearing of my voice now, and I hope he will find his way clear this year to building the other forty miles of road,


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: I think some reply should be made to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean), because it is a serious thing to take the position he does in connection with a Bill of this kind. He talks about the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart). If we had adopted the strict rule we would have been long before this doing some business that I think requires, at this period of the session, more attention.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear.


David Tisdale: It does not matter whether the hon. gentlemen are right or wrong ; if they think they have a grievance, in season and out of season, in spite of the rules of the House, they will ventilate it. If we stood by the rules, and it is usually the wisest way to stand by the rules, we would not possibly have had this discus-


William Findlay Maclean: sion, notwithstanding the fact that hon. gentlemen adopt this way of answering an argument and charge those who differ from them with resorting to technicalities. The rules of the House would not have allowed this discussion if they had been applied, because the hon. gentleman did not give notice.


Thomas Walter Scott: Is there not a motion before the Chair ?


David Tisdale: If you apply the strict rules of the House, you must speak to the motion, and as there is no notice of an amendment there is nothing before the Chair.


Thomas Walter Scott: There is a motion before the Chair.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The motion is to carry the clause.


William Findlay Maclean: What is the motion, Mr. Chairman ?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Flint).: The motion is that the preamble of this Bill be adopted.


William Findlay Maclean: Certainly ; you may discuss anything on this motion.


David Tisdale: There is no notice of the amendment given. You may discuss anything in connection with the Bill, but I think I am right if the technical rule were adopted. I will ask for a ruling on that, anyway.


Thomas Barnard Flint: I will give the ruling that on the motion to adopt the preamble the discussion is very broad indeed, and it is very difficult to limit it.


David Tisdale: That does not settle the matter very well, either way. I was always under the impression that when an amendment is offered, notice is required, which is outside of the broadness of the preamble. However, whichever way that may be, I was going to say that as far as I am concerned, I desire to give the hon. gentleman all the latitude necessary, but I think it is hardly fair, when we take the position as the hon. member for Lanark did, that we should confine ourselves to the merits of the matter before the committee, to be immediately accused of being railway men or of having some particular feeling about the Bill. That is no argument. The reason I rose to speak, was that the hon. member for East York said that the only way to remedy the grievances was for hon. members to band themselves together and to air their grievances. In the first place, that presumes that there is a grievance. I do not see any possible grievance. I think it is a grievance ' upon the members of the House that there should be this unnecessary delay when the matter, as has been explained by a previous speaker, has been absolutely delegated to the largest committee of the House, fully discussed, and voted upon. When that is done that should settle it, at

all events, for one year. The grievance is that after the legislature and that large committee have dealt with the subject that we should be kept here a whole afternoon discussing this matter.	Hon. gentlemen
talk about grievances. We are asked now to deal with a matter that has nothing to do with the Bill under consideration. We are asked to change the Act of parliament that has actually gone through after full discussion this session.	Hon. gentlemen
stand up in this House and propose that hon. gentlemen should band themselves together. Why should not hon. gentlemen have the courage to get up and express their opinions about what is a grievance and what is not ? I feel that when a large committee and this House have come to a conclusion, when a matter becomes law between individuals, or between individuals and corporations, it should be maintained. It would be ridiculous and humiliating in legislation, if after we make a solemn contract we should be asked to repeal it before that contract is cold. That really is what these hon. gentlemen want to do. A few days ago we passed that charter and we had the parties before Us and we heard the facts. It appeared that some people who had for a long time made no progress under that charter lost the land grant. Some hon. gentlemen here talk as if it were easy to raise money to build roads, especially in new districts, but let them try. Some of these gentlemen from the North-west tell us that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is so unpopular, that to advocate even their rights


Nathaniel Boyd: I did not say anything about their rights.


David Tisdale: But, the argument advanced is to take away their rights, and if the Canadian Pacific Railway were a thousand times as unpopular as these gentleman say they are, I am one of those who would stand up for the rights they have acquired. I am willing to go out of the House of Commons, and feel I would be more honoured in doing that, than to remain here and give my voice in favour of changing contracts that have been solemnly entered into by this parliament. Let me ask these gentlemen who have so many grievances : Where would Canada be without railways ; where did the money come from


William Findlay Maclean: Where would the Canadian Pacific Railway be without Canada ?


David Tisdale: That is dragging a herring across the trail. I hold, Sir, that we should keep good faith with these corporations. no matter what occurs. I am not so much interested in what people think of me, but I do say that I look upon a contract as a solemn thing that is not to be slightly tampered with. If the majority decide against my views, I must accept their opinion, because legislation not only binds the people in favour of a thing, but the people against it as well. I am tired of hearing these contracts spoken of in a joking manner in this parliament. When we make contracts of the greatest importance, it is no joking matter that we should be asked to change them before these contracts are cold. That is a very serious matter. When you talk about railways failing to carry out their contracts, I am with you every time, but I am never with you in trying to break a contract entered into in good faith. Do not give a charter unless you think it is right, and then stick to it. It is a bad way to maintain the credit of Canada for this parliament to break contracts solemnly entered into. In this case you do not say the Canadian Pacific Railway is in default, and yet you seek to add a burden upon a new project of theirs without any argument against the project itself, but because of something that happened in another place. If a railway or other corporation does not carry out its pledges to the country, I would be the first to compel it to do so, but, when it does carry out its agreement, I will always be against you when you seek to deal unfairly with that corporation.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. '


David Tisdale: I would have no objection to be ' hear, beared ' for standing up to advocate the maintenance of what we have agreed to. These hon. gentlemen think they have a grievance-
Mi-. SCOTT. What agreement is the hon. gentleman referring to ?


David Tisdale: When I speak of the agreement, I mean the Act of parliament.


William Findlay Maclean: What Act of parliament ?


David Tisdale: The Act of parliament that gave the Great North-west Central, now the Canadian Pacific Railway, their charter, and stated if they build so much a year we would have no business to put our hands upon them.


William Findlay Maclean: Did it go through this House ?


David Tisdale: Yes. These hon. gentlemen who oppose this Bill do not agree upon the facts, and I submit that they should know the facts before they come to speak in this House. We heard some of them propound an argument on the land grant, and it was pointed out to them that they were altogether mistaken. In justice to the country and in justice to themselves, hon. gentlemen should be well informed when they come here to deal with serious matters. I want my position to be fully understood. I challenge any of these bon. gentlemen to point to one vote I gave or one argument I ever made where I did

not stand up to compel the railway to do justice. That is the difference between me and some hon. gentlemen in this House.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I was in charge of the Bill to which such frequent references has been made during this debate.


An hon. MEMBER.: You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Not in the least. When I was asked by the gentlemen of the Canadian Pacific Railway to take charge of the Bill, I looked at it, and I found that it contained only two clauses. I acceded to the request to take charge of the Bill on the condition, that if any fair compromise were 'suggested, or any fair amendment proposed, I would in duty bound accept it. On that condition I agreed to take charge of the Bill. The Bill merely asked for an extension of time for five years to build the road, and to change the head office to the city of Montreal.


William Forsythe McCreary: And to deal in land.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. There were only two clauses. I have the Bill here just as I introduced it. The Bill went through all its stages, and it was well discussed in the Railway Committee, and a compromise was arrived at whereby the time was shortened from five years to three years, and whereby the company bound themselves to build a certain mileage this year, a certain mileage next year, and a certain mileage the third year. This compromise was accepted, and the Bill passed through the House. I did not get the Bill surreptitiously through the House. Everything was above board, there was a full discussion, and the Bill went to the Senate, after being amended by the. House, and passed by it. If there was any opposition to be offered to that Bill, the time to offer the opposition was when it was before this House. I am surprised to find to-day that after the compromise, which they considered had been a fair and reasonable compromise, had been agreed to, and after the Bill passed this House, that it should come up for discussion in connection with another Bill entirely different, simply because the Canadian Pacific Railway happen to be connected with this other Bill. I am surprised that we should be asked to reopen this whole question which has been already settled. I have no hesitation in stating that it is open to hon. members to ventilate any grievance they think proper, but, at the same time, these grievances should be ventilated at the proper time, and I hope that my hon. friends will cease their agitation against this Bill, if they have no other reasons against it except those in connection with another Bill which has been already settled. If there are new grievances or new amendments or new suggestions in connection with this present Bill, well and good, let notice be given of them.


David Tisdale: Nothing of the kind has been done. What we are doing now is discussing another Bill, which is not dead or buried, but which has gone to a higher sphere in the Senate. Well, we have already considered that Bill closely and attentively in this House, and a compromise in connection with it was agreed upon by all parties. The House is now committed to that legislation, and we cannot go back on it unless another is introduced to amend that Bill.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I quite realize that in trespassing again upon the time of the committee, I owe them an apology ; but I cannot allow the remarks of the hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) to go without a word in reply. The hon. gentleman waxed very warm indeed-I have no doubt his heart was burning with patriotic fire-when he informed this House that rather than interpret a contract or do anything of that kind he would be quite willing to resign his seat and retire into obscurity. I hold in my hand ' Hansard ' of 1894, in which I find a speech of the hon. gentleman's in support of a Bill which was introduced by the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), then Minister of Railways and Canals, to interpret a clause in the Canadian Pacific Railway charter. Let me explain the position. There was a clause in the original charter of the Canadian Pacific Railway which enabled the company to import free of duty all the material required for the construction of the road. The road was completed in 1884, or 1880, and an order in council was passed by the then government declaring the road to be completed, and the subsidies were finally paid. Subsequently it occurred to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that it would be desirable to construct some iron and steel bridges On the railway, and they asked the government to be allowed under the old clause to import the materials for those bridges free of duty. The government declined. Sir John Thompson, who was then Minister of Justice and Premier, reported that it would be impossible for the government to allow that under the contract, because they had passed an order in council declaring the road to be completed, and had paid the subsidies. The hon. member for Lanark, then Minister of Railways and Canals, got over the difficulty by introducing a Bill to this effect:
That it is expedient to provide that the words ' original construction ' in section 1 of chapter 7 of the statutes of 1882, respecting the allowance of drawback on certain articles manufactured in Canada for use in the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, shall be construed to extend and include the first iron or steel bridge erected in a locality, but not to any renewal or repair thereof.
Here was a clause in the Canadian Pacific Railway charter which was absolutely clear. ' Original construction ' were the words

used; and when my hon. friend from Lanark introduced a Bill to construe those words, interfering with what the right hon. the
premier would call vested rights-


The PRIME MINISTER.: Not a bit of it.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Anyway, there can be no doubt upon this point.


John Graham Haggart: Cannot you see the distinction ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: No. Allow me to finish my argument. The clause was perfectly clear ; it said that the material to
be used in the ' original construction ' should come in free of duty. The road is completed, the Minister of Justice reports that it has been completed, and the order in council is passed declaring that it has been completed. Then my hon. friend from Lanark introduced a Bill to construe the clause I refer to ; and, as it was in the interest of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the hon. member for South Norfolk stood up and expressed himself in this language :
I regret that I cannot see this matter in the same way as the member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy).
Dalton McCarthy had taken strong ground against the Bill, denouncing it as the interpretation of a contract. The hon. member for South Norfolk went on :
In my opinion, it ought to he considered in a broader way than the strictest technical construction which he wishes parliament to apply to this matter.
Of course, when the interests of the Canadian Pacific Railway are at stake, the contract is to be considered in a ' broad way ; ' but when I introduced a Bill the other day to interpret a clause according to the view which parliament and every man in this country understood to mean-twenty years from the date of the contract, my hon. friend got up and denounced it. It was said he is a dangerous man, this member for Lisgar; he wants to interfere with the vested rights of the Canadian Pacific Railway ? But to-day the hon. gentleman tells us that he will resign his seat in parliament rather than construe a contract. I contend, in view of the case I have made against the hon. gentleman, that he }s absolutely out of court. He is quite willing on every occasion to stand up here and advocate the rights of the Canadian Pacific Railway; but when we from the North-west, who have seen how the settlers have borne the burden and heat of the day, stand up to defend their interests, he undertakes to lecture us. I consider his lecture quite uncalled for, and I resent it.


William Forsythe McCreary: I want to move an amendment, that the road go to the Icelandic river.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That cannot be done without notice.


Mr. PUTTEE.: Can the hon. gentleman not have the Bill referred back so as to add that ?


William Forsythe McCreary: No, I will let it go.
Bill reported.



SOVEREIGN BANK OP CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 109) to incorporate the Canadian National Bank.- Mr. German.
The MINISTER OP FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). The only question involved in this Bill was its title. I do not see the hon. member for Welland, who has charge of the Bill, in his seat. Objection was taken to the title in the committee, and the name Empire Bank was substituted. That has been very seriously objected to by the directors of the Imperial Bank, and I think the objection is well founded. The promoters of the Bill have therefore expressed their willingness to accept the name, the Sovereign Bank of Canada. I do not think that there can be any objection to that.
Mr. CALVERT.: I may say, in the absence of the hon. member for Welland, that I have a telegram from Mr. Campbell stating that he is willing that the name should be changed to the Sovereign Bank of Canada.


Mr. WALLACE.: I would like to understand what right the Imperial Bank has to
a monopoly of the word ' Empire.'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not suppose it has any absolute monopoly of the word ' Empire;' but the words 'Empire' and ' Imperial ' are near enough alike to leave some ground for criticism, and the parties, rather than have any controversy on the subject, have consented to make the change.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



WESTERN ASSURANCE COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 124) respecting the Western As-surace Company-Mr. McCarthy-considered in committee, and reported.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved the third reading of the Bill.
William Findlay Maclean: Do you not think that this Act should be made general so that other companies may avail themselves of it, and have the same rights with regard to the insurance business ? A new company has been given this right and now two insurance companies are applying by private legisla tion for a similar right. Why not make a general Act or put a clause in one of these Bills providing, that other companies, on making application to the Governor General in Council, may be given the same right.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The number of companies desiring the privilege

is very small. I do not think tliat after this Bill passes we will be likely to have any applications from any other companies.
Motion agreed to ; Bill read the third time, and passed.



IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 125) respecting the British America Assurance Company.-Mr. McCarthy.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 120) respecting the Subsidiary High Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters of the Dominion of Canada.-Mr. Heyd.
Mr. INGRAM.: When this Bill was before the committee the other day, 1 asked for postponement until Friday in order that I might get a reply from certain gentlemen who were opposed to its provisions. I did not receive the expected telegram in sufficient time to attend that committee, and therefore the Bill was passed through tne committee and reported to the House before I could make the views of these gentlemen known.
In the first instance I received a letter asking me to thoroughly investigate this proposed legislation. I did so, and can see no objection to it, but I have letters here from a committee, representing 295 members of that organization, asking me to move the six months' hoist; and I am placed in a delicate position of having to move it at the third reading, although I can find no reasonable objection to the measure. But in order to protect myself in the future, I feel obliged to read the correspondence and place it on ' Hansard,' so that in case I should be mistaken in my judgment, hon. gentlemen will be in the position to determine from the correspondence whether or not they should vote for or against the six months' hoist.
St. Thomas, Ont., April 19th, 1901.
Dear Sir,-An application to the parliament of Canada is pending on behalf of the Subsidiary High Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters for further legislation. The executive council claims that it has been compelled, in the best interests of the order, to apply for this legislation, but many of the membership of the order consider that the executive council, in attempting this, is taking upon itself a greater responsibility than it would fairly be expected to assume, also that the application is being made somewhat hastily and without fairly enlightening the subordinate courts as to the details and scope of the proposed legislation.
A circular letter, of which the inclosed is a copy, was received by Court Elgin, No. 5863, and at its last regular meeting a committee was appointed to communicate our views to you, so that you might do what you can to further them, and guard our interests. We feel that as of right, particulars of the circumstances which would render. it necessary to apply for legislation and the remedies or advantages sought to be afforded us by legislation should have been communicated, and a draft or copy of the proposed Bill should have been Mr. FIELDING.
sent to all subordinate courts a reasonable time before the meeting of parliament.
Without being provided with these the subordinate courts cannot determine whether the rights of our membership are being curtailed or assured to us. All the subordinate courts elect delegates for the Subsidiary High Court meeting, to be held in August next, when the present executive council will be eligible for re-election, and if the pending Bill be given a six months' hoist, all matters rendering further legislation desirable and the nature and scheme of relief to be provided by such legislation could be fairly considered by a most representative body.
Court Elgin was established in St. Thomas in 1873, and has a membership of 295. We feel confident that you will endeavour to serve our best interests.
Yours respectfully,



W. E. YOUMANS,

[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
A. B. Ingram, Esq., M.P.,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Ont.
I have stated that I could not see that this legislation in any way injured the Ancient Order of Foresters. But notwithstanding that, I received this circular and a letter which I will also read. The circular is as follows :
Toronto, April, 2, 1901.
Dear Sir and Brother,

You are requested to read at the next meeting of your court the following notice :-
' Notice is hereby given that application will be made to the parliament of Canada, at its present session by the Subsidiary High Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters for an Act :
' 1. Declaring that-all assets, interests, rights, credits, effects and property, real, personal and mixed, belonging to the Subsidiary High Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters, incorporated under the provisions of chapter 167 of R. S. O., 1877 (the Provincial Corporation), were from and after the 13th day of June, 1898, vested in the Subsidiary High Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters, incorporated by an Act of parliament of Canada, chapter 91 of the statutes of 189S (the Dominion Corporation).
' 2. Declaring that members in the said provincial corporation, on the said 13th day of June, 1898, became on the said date members in the said Dominion corporation, and subject to the constitution and laws of the said Dominion corporation from time to time in force.

[Stage Direction]
' Solicitor for Applicant.
' Dated at Toronto, this 18th day of March, 1900.'
This legislation is sought to supplement the legislation obtained at Ottawa in the year 1898.
I beg to say that the proposed legislation in no way affects any of the funds of the subordinate courts. Kindly sign and return the inclosed acknowledgment.
Yours fraternally,
(Sgd.) W. WILLIAMS,
Permanent Secretary.
This circular was sent to this court that I speak of, dated 2nd April, but received some little time after that. Before I read the letter, let me read this reply which I got by telegram :
[Stage Direction]
St. Thomas, Out., April 25, 1901.
A. B. Ingram,
Parliament Buildings, Ottawa.
Press for six months' hoist because insufficient notice, &c. Delegates from all subordinate courts meet August. Recent Ontario legislation displeasing many. Am writing.
S.	W. E. YOUMANS, EDGAR SANDERS.
That was the telegram I did not receive in time to present to the committee last Friday. Now, the last letter I received reads like this :
St. Thomas, Ont., April 25, 1901.
A. B. Ingram, Esq., M.P.,
Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-Replying to your kind favour of yesterday, I may say that I will wire you to-night as suggested by you. There is no doubt at all that this matter of proposed legislation was brought on quite suddenly and our members here as well as members of other courts who have written to some of us feel that the executive were attempting to rush through the Bills, namely, that one which has been passed in the local House, and the one Which is now pending before the Dominion House. The first notice which we received here of the Bill in the local House was through the public press and the notices which were sent out on behalf of the executive council did not reach us until the matter was well under way at the parliament buildings. The assurance which you have received in Ottawa that a large delegation attended before the Ontario legislature and after they had heard the discussion of the Bill left for their homes entirely satisfied, we feel is not strictly correct. A letter containing that assurance was received by me some days ago. Inclosed you will find front page of the Ancient Forester, the official organ of the order, in which there is no doubt that the executive council have endeavoured to put this new legislation lately obtained from the Ontario government, in its most favourable light. Upon perusing this sheet of the Ancient Forester, you will see that even that organ does not claim that all those who attended went away entirely satisfied. Since the obtaining of the Act of parliament of Canada, chap, 91, 1898, a number of things in our order have not been as satisfactory to the members at large as they were before the obtaining of that Act, and until sufficient time is allowed to permit the full discussion and complete understanding of the reason why a Bill to supplement that Act is being applied for, and the full scope of the present Bill, we feel that nothing can be done. As mentioned to you in my former letter, the Subsidiary High Court meeting will be held in August. There will be present representatives from all the subordinate courts, and then matters can be fully threshed out, and until after the meeting has been held we think it would be in the interests of the order that the legislation that has been
asked for be not granted	
Yours sincerely,

[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
I need not read the rest of this, as it contains references personal to myself. I received a letter from the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), who stated that J. S. Williams had been an officer in the Ancient Order of Foresters. I find that on
reference to the official sheet of that organization that Mr. J. S. Williams was one of the gentlemen who attended the provincial legislature for the purpose of opposing the Bill passed by that legislature. I find in the letter of the hon. member for West Toronto that Mr. Williams does not oppose this legislation in Ottawa, which is on similar lines to that passed in the provincial House. I place these on ' Hansard ' for the purpose of showing the objections raised by the gentlemen who are opposed to the legislation. So far as I can see personally, there is no particular objection to the legislation as it stands before this House. But, notwithstanding, I feel obliged to move the six months' hoist.
Mr. SPROTJLE.: I opposed the hurried way in which this Bill was being railroaded through the committee. I had indirect information that there was something objectionable about the Bill, though I was not informed what it was. As a matter of principle, I object to the way these Bills are put through with short notice. It is not likely that the order would suffer if longer time were given. But, to bring some excuse for presenting a Bill to the House without giving regular notice always creates in my mind the impression that there is something behind it. There may be cases where exceptional circumstances justify bringing in a Bill without the regular-notice. If this is one of them, it should be possible to show that considerable damage to the order will result if the legislation is not granted. But, we should be very slow to push such legislation through without the regular notice. It was stated in committee that there were no objections to this Bill, that everybody was satisfied. But it now appears that such is not the case. This is only another example of the wisdom of making haste slowly with these Bills that, for one excuse or another, are brought into the House without regular notice being given.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The matter having been disposed of by the committee, and especially as the hon. gentleman who has charge of the Bill is not. here, I think we should be hardly justified in throwing out the Bill. The third reading can be postponed, which will leave an opportunity for further consideration. The only objection that was raised in my hearing was, that this company had done business at certain rates, and that later on had increased its rates. That is likely to occur under this system, and I think it can hardly be said to be an objection to this Bill. The right of any person in the institution is not * affected. The Bill transfers them from a provincial to a federal jurisdiction, but it does not. so far as we can see, affect any personal interest. Whatever interest a member has now, he will have after the Bill is passed. Under that impression, the commit-I tee passed the Bill. I think it would be a

pity to have a six months' hoist prevail, especially as the opinion of the hon. gentleman (Hr. Ingram) who moved it is really favourable to the Bill.


Andrew B. Ingram: The great objection is, that the executive officers did not give ample notice before proceeding to ask for legislation in this House, as well as legislation in the Ontario legislature. It is the usual practice in fraternal organizations, before they present legislation affecting the order to circulate it throughout the subordinate lodges, and to get their judgment upon it. The objection has been that in this case due notice was not given.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: With rererence to what the hon. Minister of Finance has said as to the fact of the Bill passing the committee being a reason why we Should accept it here, I may remind him that the reason why it was passed in the committee was, that the statement was made that no person was opposed to it. I know that it was on those grounds that I myself refrained from saying anything about it, though 1 had information from some individuals that it was rather objectionable. It turned out afterwards there were a good many opposed to it, personal members of the order. The trouble seems to be that they have legislation which gives them the foundation for making or amending by-laws, sometimes to the detriment of individual members of the order. Not being a member |of the order it would be hard for one to understand the ramifications of these various Bills, and which would injuriously affect the associations. It has always seemed to me that one of the safest guarantees for the welfare of the order is to give proper notice. When that is done it is always brought before the subordinate courts before it is taken up by the executive of the order. In this case it was not time to do that.
Bill reported.



QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Mr. Sproule-asked :
1.	Is the Postmaster General aware that the number of mail clerks on the railway trains in the district of Quebec is entirely insufficient?
2.	Have there been applications for additional mail clerks in the district of Quebec?
3.	What is the number of mail clerks in the several postal districts of Quebec, Montreal and Toronto?
4.	What is the average number of miles travelled daily by each mail clerk in each of the three several districts?
5.	Is it true that a bounty of $200 is granted to the head of a postal district who effects the largest reduction in the expenditure of his district; and that such reduction.is effected to the detriment of the mail clerks, who are compelled to work without relaxation and without rest, instead of increasing their number?
Mr. FIELDING.: 


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) :: 1.	No.
2.	Yes. One clerk recently applied for and will be supplied.
3.	Quebec, 39 ; Montreal, 44 ; Toronto, 74 ;
(two of tliis number employed at office work). Postal car routes in Quebec district : Ten, representing 25 trains per day, between terminal points of each route. Montreal district:	12 routes, 30 trains. Toronto district: 24 routes, 58 trains.
4.	Average daily mileage of clerks-Quebec : 106, 258, 131, 212, 187, 220, 136, 111, 130, 97, 223, 202, 241, 177, 95, 215, 87, 117, 100, 97, 122, 41, 177, 195, 84, 136, 91, 98, 115, 108, 138, 151, 89, 99, 64, 78, 89, 63, 60. Montreal : S6, 116, 100, 94, 33, 116, 116, 131, 91, 71, 102, 89, 155, 139, 86, 155, 73, 125, 128, 161, 142, 44, 100, 143, 31, 122, 101, 137, 140, 157, 55, 156, 151, 133. 151, 121, 43, 138, 89, 147, 49, 98, 40, 115. Toronto : 118, 128, 77, 113, 118, 143. 87, 62, 122, 131, 110, 86, 136 127, 48, 113, 77, 131. 151, 98, 98, 74, 135, 50,
140,	147, 138, 144, 148, 114, 153, 109, 127, 105,
141,	32, 98, 113, 98, 145, 126, 98, 65, 144, 138, 62, 136, 47, 131, 86, 127, 122, 58. 82. 65, 96, 133, 80, 130. 116, 91, 126, 151, 113, 102; 127, 130, S3, 84, 77, 65, 93.
5.	It is not true in any particular.


IMPORTS FROM THE UNITED STATES.
Mr. CHARLTON asked :: What is the total amount of dutiable imports for consumption from the United States, from July 1st, 1900, to April 1st, 1901?


Tbe MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: The total amount of dutiable imports for consumption from tbe United States, from July 1st, 1900, to April 1st, 1901, was $37,486,308.


Mr. CH  ARLTON@: What is the .total amount of imports for consumption from the United States from July 1st,
1900,	to April 1st, 1901?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: The total amount of imports for consumption from the United States, from July 1st, 1900, to April 1st,
1901,	is $78,702,440.


John Charlton: What is the total amount of duty collected upon imports from the United States from July 1st, 1900, to April 1st, 1901?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: The total amount of duty collected upon imports from the United States from July 1st, 1900, to April 1st, '1901, is not yet compiled.
If the hon. gentleman urgently desires this information, the department might be able to give it to him in the course of a week, or, if he prefers to let it stand, he can do so.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Stand.


TELEGRAPH LINES TO DAWSON.
Mr. GANONG asked :: 1.	What is the date the telegraph line to Bennett from Dawson was commenced and when first in operation? -
2.	When will the through line from Dawson to Quesnelle be finished?
3.	What is the number of messages sent over the line as far as finished from the first day until the 15th of April, 1901, and amount of revenue derived therefrom during that period?
4.	What number of messages were sent over the line during that period per month, and average rate and receipt?
5.	What is the tariff on the line as far as it is now in operation?
6.	What will the proposed tariff be from Dawson to Ashcroft as soon as the through line is in operation, or on what basis per one hundred miles?	[DOT]
7.	What is the cost of the line as far as finished?
8-What will be the cost of the through line when finished, and what will be the length of the land wire?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte) :: 1.	Construction was begun in the spring of 1899. The line was in operation between Bennett and White Horse in June, and to Dawson on the 28th of September.
2.	Completion through to Ashcroft is expected early in the coming summer of 1901- 1st July, I hope.
3.	The latest returns to hand from the whole line are up to the 31st of December, 1900. Total number of messages sent: June, 1899, December, 1900, inclusive, was 41,816, and amount of revenue during same period, $107,712.28.
4.	The number of messages sent over the line during the twelve months of the year 1900, was 32,180, and the revenue was $87,630.83; average per month was 2,681 messages, and receipts $7,302.57.
5.	The tariff may be found on page 40 of the report of the Department of Public Works on telegraphs, which reads as follows :
Ordinary message rates, 75 cents for the first ten words, and 5 cents for each additional word with the White Pass Company line, and 50 cents and 5 cents to $3.15, according to distance, for government line; the charge being approximately 50 cents for ten words for each 100 miles. The balance of the rates may be found as I said, on page 40 of the departmental report.
6.	Tariff for line when connection is made through to Ashcroft is not yet determined.
7.	Four hundred and thirty thousand dollars.
8.	About $460,000. The length of line Bennett to Tagish is 46 miles ; Tagish to .Dawson, 518 miles ; Tagnish to Atlin, 75 miles, and from Atlin to Ashcroft will probably be about 1,250 miles.


STEAMSHIP SERVICE BETWEEN CAN- ADA AND FRANCE.
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) moved :: That the following proposed resolution be taken into consideration to-morrow :*-That it is expedient to make provision for a subsidy, not exceeding a sum of $100,000 per annum for a steamship service between a port or ports in Canada and a port or ports in France.
He said : I may add that I have the authority of His Excellency for presenting it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 64) to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1900.- Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick.
On section 1,
The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Hon. Chas. Fitzpatrick).: This is the same clause as we had before except that it substitutes paragraph (g) of section 41 for paragraph (h). Paragraph (h) in the old Bill is a misprint. There is no paragraph (h) in section 41. It should be paragraph (g).


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. member for Marquette. (Mr. Roche) has a similar Bill, and we are asking for delay in order that the hon. gentleman may be here.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: We will take up the next clause and leave this.


William Findlay Maclean: Before we pass from this, I would like to ask the hon. Solicitor General whether he is making provision for mistakes like that which occurred in West Durham and whether he intends to propose some legislation which will prevent the recurrence of similar mistakes and which will have the effect of giving the gentleman elected for West Durham his seat in this House.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I understand my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) refers to the difficulty in respect to the cheque deposit, which was made at the time of nomination. That difficulty will not occur after this Bill becomes law, because we make provision for that which occurred in the West Durham election. At the same time, my hon. friend must not expect that we will pass legislation that will be retroactive, or that it will cover the difficulties that happened heretofore and which are now before the court.


William Findlay Maclean: Why not ? I think the very place to correct a mistake and an injustice of that kind is in this House, and the only place where you can do real justice in this case is in this House. This

House, by legislation and without doing any wrong to anybody, can declare that Mr. Thornton is the member for West Durham and it ought to do it to-day. I think it is the duty of the government to do this and it is the duty of the opposition to test the opinion of the House on this very point. It is not a matter so much of law ; it is a matter of doing right in the premises and of haying the constituency represented. As I pointed out before, the same thing that happened in West Durham could have happened in a great many ridings in this country, and the result would have been that the government could have taken advantage of it, If the election had been close, to have remained In power for six months. Not only-do I want the law corrected in respect to the deposit of a marked cheque but I want to see parliament do the people of West Durham the justice of allowing them a representative in this House this session. I am in favour of retroactive legislation ; you may call it what you like if it does justice. The main thing is to do justice. This is one of the most prominent constituencies in Canada ; the constituency of West Durham was at one time represented by the Hon. Edward Blake, but. owing to a little informality, or to an indiscretion on the part of the returning officer, it is unrepresented in this parliament, and it may be unrepresented as far as the courts are concerned, for four years hence. We do not know when the courts will decide the question. Parliament has to voice the opinion of the people, and the people have to get representation in this House to express their opinions. We should not leave a question like this in the courts. It is not a party question. The main thing is to get a full representation of the people of this country in this parliament. Mr. Thornton had a substantial majority, but by a little indiscretion on the part of the returning officer, he is not permitted to take his seat. I think the only thing for parliament to do now is to pass a resolution declaring that Mr. Thornton is the duly elected representative of West Durham and that he is entitled to take his seat in this House.
I hope the government, in connection with this Bill, will either put a clause in, or that parliament will pass a resolution, whichever way will better suit the case, and seat Mr. Thornton in this House as the duly elected member for West Durham. I am not in favour of leaving this case to the courts and having it hung up in the courts for three or four years. It was started months ago and there is no headway yet. We do not know when the constituency will be1 represented.
I am in favour of the voice of the people being represented in this1 House. Through some small affair, some illegality, a large section of the community is unrepresented, and I hope the House will make provision to seat Mr. Thornton in this House right away.


William Findlay Maclean: 


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I would remind my hon. friend that the intention of this amendment is to meet a difficulty that occurred in connection with the West Durham election, and that difficulty arose, not because of any change in the law that has taken place since 1896, but because of the law as we have had it since 1874. The difficulty having arisen and now being before the courts for solution it would be improper for us by legislation to interfere with the action of the courts. We go as far as we can consistently, to make some provision which will prevent this difficulty arising in the future.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not want to prevent you doing that, but I want you to right the wrong that exists to-day. Mr. Thornton should be a member of this House.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It is for the courts to construe whether or not a wrong exists.


William Findlay Maclean: Parliament is above the courts. Parliament can say who should be a member of the House and who should not.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: That would
be a dangerous course.


William Findlay Maclean: It is not a dangerous course; it is the way to obtain justice. The way to keep that constituency unrepresented is to hang the suit up in the courts for years, but the way to secure immediate representation for the people and to do the fullest justice, is for this House to resolve that in its opinion Mr. Thornton is the duly elected representative of the people of West Durham. It is well within our rights, and it is our duty to ourselves and to that constituency to adopt the method which I suggest.


Mr. BENNETT.: The people of West Durham irrespective of party, will be amazed at the announcement of the Solicitor General that no action is to be taken in this case. The people of that riding thought that this matter would be dealt with on its merits, and not sidetracked on a technicality. The Solicitor General has thrown out the suggestion that the case is in the courts, but the question of the merits as to whether Mr. Thornton was elected by the majority of the votes of the electors in that riding is not in doubt at all. The question as to whether Mr. Thornton may be unseated for wrong-doing on the part of himself or his agents is an open question, but on the very first day of the session the government should have called the returning officer to the bar of the House to get from him his return as to who secured the majority of votes. Why have not the government done that. Their majority is so large that the addition of one Conservative would not have affected it to any

material extent. But the government has refused to do justice to Mr. Thornton, and they now shield themselves behind the technicality that the case is hung up in the courts. I speak from information from men who live in that riding when I say, that the feeling of the people there is a feeling of utter disgust at the action of the government. So much is that the case that when their friends. of the Ontario government called a convention in that riding they were unable to secure the nomination of a Liberal, because in the face of the bitter public opinion that exists there as to the wrong done Mr. Thornton, no one had the hardihood to accept a nomination from the Liberal party. That is how it should be. An action of this kind should be treated with reprobation as the people of West Durham have treated it. There is no question before the courts as to Mr. Thornton having received the majority of the votes. The whole question is a technical one as to whether there was a proper procedure by Mr. Thornton's solicitor.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: That is not the question. The question before the Supreme Court is whether Mr. Thornton was ever a candidate at all or not, and I think that is of some importance.


William Findlay Maclean: We should settle it.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: We might as well proceed to settle whether my hon. friend is legally there or not.


William Findlay Maclean: I leave myself to the judgment of the House on that point.


William Humphrey Bennett: There is no question of the merits of Mr. Thornton's election, but there is a question as to the legality of the deposit. The unfortunate position is brought about by the fault of this government, because they had not the courage to appoint a judge to that court. The two judges differed, whereas if a third judge had been sitting the question would have been settled one way or the other.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: My hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) is wrong. Surely the hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that there must be only two judges to try an election case, and that the appeal is from the two judges of the Supreme Court. If there were forty judges appointed in Ontario it would not affect the question.


William Humphrey Bennett: As I understand, the question came up in the division court, and not before the trial judges.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: They could not go before the division court at all.


William Humphrey Bennett: If I am wrong in that I will withdraw what I have said'on that point. However, that does not remove the responsibility from the government of summoning the returning officer before the bar
of the House, and getting his declaration as to the number of votes polled for each candidate, when it would have been the right and the duty of this House to declare Mr. Thornton elected as having the majority of the votes. It was within the power of this House to pass an Act recognizing Mr. Thornton as the member elect, reserving, of course, the right of the petitioner to take proceedings under the Controverted Elections Act. I hope that before this Bill goes through it will be made retroactive, so as to declare Mr. Thornton elected, reserving all rights to the petitioner who may wish to contest his election on the usual grounds.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I do not think the proposition can be entertained for one moment. The question in that case was as to whether or not Mr. Thornton was ever a candidate at all, and that question was submitted to the courts for decision, and is now before the Supreme Court.


William Humphrey Bennett: Where was this trial held when the two judges differed ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I cannot tell you, but the matter is pending in the Supreme Court.


Mr. LANCASTER.: The difference between the judges as to whether Mr. Thornton was a candidate or not, was caused by the state of the law which the Solicitor General is now amending, the question being as to whether a cheque was a legal tender. If it is right to amend that law so that no one will be bothered by that objection in the future, why is it not just to say that it shall not apply to Mr. Thornton's election last November.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: My hon. friend is surely not serious. You have a
law passed by this House upon which rights of parties have been settled, and after that law is passed and the rights of the parties are settled thereunder, it may be convenient for parliament to alter the law, but parliament cannot alter a law in such a way as to affect the rights acquired under previous legislation. Surely no lawyer will contend that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There is no contract
here. There is nobody sitting in the House, because of the objection, and the man who had the majority of the votes would be sitting in the House now if the law had been the same on the 7th of November as the Solicitor General now proposes to make it. The merits of the case are entirely with the argument of the member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett).


William Findlay Maclean: It is quite within the jurisdiction of this House to summon the returning officer to the bar of this House, and ask him which of the two candidates had the largest number of votes; and when he has made his answer, and we are cogni-

ziuit that some little informality has taken place, this House can then declare Mr. Thornton to be the member for West Durham. That is a perfectly legal and just procedure. It is just both to the House and to the people of West Durham who by a large majority voted for Mr. Thornton. I think the right lion, leader of the House would set a good example to some of his legal lights about him if he summoned that returning officer before the bar of this House and asked him that simple question, and on the answer to that simple question seated Mr. Thornton here as the member for West Durham.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: The circumstances of this case are particularly unfortunate, because the constituency is unrepresented. It would have been far better, I imagine we all agree, if the returning officer had returned either one or the other of the candidates; and his proper course would seem to have been to return Mr. Thornton, who, according to his return printed in the Votes and Proceedings, had a majority of forty votes over the other candidate. The difficulty arose from the fact that Mr. Thornton deposited the sum of $200 with the returning officer by an accepted cheque on a bank instead of in Dominion notes. The case is particularly unfortunate, because, as I understand, there are at least two hon. gentlemen sitting in this House at the present time whose deposits were made in exactly the same way. Whether or not it is a sufficient ground for declaring the election null and void is a question now before the court. As 1 understand the legal proceedings, they are these. Mr. Thornton filed a petition against the returning officer, claiming the seat. A petition was filed in the interest of Mr. Beith against Mr. Thornton. The petition filed by Mr. Thornton came before two judges in the ordinary course, by virtue of two orders under which it was to be heard at a particular time and place. One of the judges, who thought there was jurisdiction to proceed under those orders, held that Mr. Thornton was properly elected, and should be returned. The other judge held that it was necessary, under a certain provision of the Dominion Election Act, that the two petitions should be heard together, and accordingly declined to give judgment, and an order has since been made for hearing the two petitions at the same time. In the meantime, if I correctly apprehend the facts, as they have been reported to me, preliminary objections were filed by Mr. Thornton in respect to the petition against him. and those objections have been heard and disposed of. the judge who heard them having dismissed them. From that decision an appeal has been taken to the Supreme Court of Canada, which has placed it at the head of the docket for the 7th of May. Now, it is particularly unfortunate that the const!- j Mr. MACLEAN.
tuency should have been disfranchised; that is the grave thing for the House to consider. The constituency is unrepresented by virtue of the action of the returning officer. I might point out to my hon. friend the Solicitor General that the request of my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) is not possibly so unreasonable as he may think. I do not doubt the power of parliament to pass such legislation, because if parliament has power to deal with that particular subject, it certainly could make its legislation retroactive. Whether or not parliament should do that is another question, and I admit, a serious question. Where there is litigation in the courts with respect to a matter of this kind, I agree that parliament ought to hold its hand for the most part. The only consideration which might alter this case from the ordinary case is that the constituency in question is disfranchised, and we are amending the law in respect of the very matter which is now before the courts. Now, with a constituency disfranchised and with a proposal of the government to amend the law in that very particular for the future, there seems to me to be not so unreasonable a case put forward by my hon. friend from East York as my hon. friend the Solicitor General seems to suggest. My hon. friend the Solicitor General surely does not regard it as a very reasonable or proper state of affairs that the constituency of West Durham should continue to be unrepresented in this parliament for two or three sessions.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: On the contrary, the whole thing is very unfortunate.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from East York did not propose to give Mr. Thornton the seat. He simply proposed to put him in this position, that so far as the deposit was concerned, he would not be subject to any further objection, but leaving to his opponent the right to proceed with his petition against him, just as far as the law courts would allow him.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The proposal is to give him the seat.


Robert Laird Borden: My right lion, friend I think misunderstood his suggestion. All lie suggested was that the objection, which may be to some extent called a technical one, with reference to the deposit, should not prevail, but that Mr. Thornton's nomination should be regarded as just as valid as if lie had deposited the $200 in Dominion bills.
The PRIME MINISTER,	And what
would be the effect ?


Robert Laird Borden: The effect
would be that Mr. Thornton would remain subject to attack in every other way. He might or might not get the seat. The

courts of Ontario might unseat him the next month.


Mr. FRASER.: In the meantime he would have the seat.


Robert Laird Borden: He would have the seat under exactly the same circumstances that two other lion, members have their seats, one on this side, and one on the other side. In this particular case, on account of the peculiar action of the returning officer, the constituency continues to be unrepresented.
At six o'clock, committee took recess. After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


William Findlay Maclean: As a matter of fact, the position in which we are to-day is, that the people of one constituency, West Durham, is unrepresented in this House. My contention is not that the law is wrong and needs amending, but that the law has been admitted, as a matter of fact, to be on the side of the contention I make, and that Mr. Thornton is to-day the member of that constituency. What I contend is, that we ought to summon the returning officer here, ask him which of the two candidates rehon. friend from East York simply takes this as a proper opportunity to challenge the action of the government upon another question, namely, that of West Durham. There is no one will pretend to say that anything intended by the Election Act was violated or that was not carried out in both the letter and the spirit in the West Durham election. I challenge the Solicitor General

with great courtesy, of course-to deny that. That being the case, what moral or legal claim could Mr. Beith, or anybody on Mr. Beith's behalf, set up to that seat ? This being admitted, the case we have is simply one of invasion of the rights of this House. What the returning officer did can only be said to have been technically right, and it is a straining of the meaning of the word to say that it is right even in that sense. There is no more basis for his action than there would have been had a man put in a paper with the left hand which it was the custom to put in with the right. This officer of this House has failed to return a man who, so far as we know, received a majority of the votes. His reason for failing to return him was, that the candidate's deposit was put up in the form of a cheque instead of in the form of cash. But, he took the cheque next day, and received the -cash for it.
ceived the larger number of votes, and then, this House being in possession of the fact, and being seized of the fact that in the case of an hon. member on the other side, as well as an hon. member on this side, the same informality occurred, and nothing was done in their case, we ought to declare that Mr. Thornton is the member for West Durham. We should not be going out of our way or doing anything contrary to our rights as a House, and, on the other hand, we should be doing justice to Mr. Thornton, and to that constituency that is now unrepresented. And I think that when it is put in this light, the Solicitor General and the leader of the House will find a way to bring that returning officer before the House, elicit the information I suggest, and seat Mr. Thornton, and not only that, but let it be known that this correction which the Solicitor General intends to introduce is not an amendment of the law so much as an interpretation of it in view of what has taken place already in connection with the two seats that have been disputed, but the right to which has been conceded.


James Clancy: I do not understand this at all as a proposal to ask the Solicitor General to amend the Bill by making this retroactive legislation. We can. therefore, dismiss any discussion having the slightest reference to any matter of that kind


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It is that or nothing.


James Clancy: I think I can point out, even as a layman, that it is not that, and that it is something. I understand that my


William Findlay Maclean: He gave a receipt for
it.


James Clancy: Yes. That might have been unwittingly given and the cheque not have been good. But this was a marked ! cheque, and every marked cheque is equivalent to the bills of the bank if the bank . was solvent. If the bank was solvent, there , is not a single ground on which a man could take action of this kind. But, though ' the returning officer had received the cash ' for the cheque, and though he knew, in his ' capacity as returning officer, that Mr. Thorn-j ton had a majority of the votes, he refused to return him. The effect of that was that ' the returning officer was sitting in judgment j on his own act. As a layman, I am not in' dined to treat with levity or with the c slightest want of respect the views of legal J gentlemen. But, laymen do not reverence ' so much as legal gentlemen do, perhaps, ! the decisions given in the courts on merely c technical grounds which have again and ? again furnished the most startling instances c of injustice. This has absolutely nothing to do with the case in the courts. 3 If there is a case in the courts, how is it
- there ? I will not question the action of
-	those engaged in it ; but we know that , there are astute legal gentlemen who can t get any case before the courts. The. case
should' not have gone before the courts. My hon. friend from East York (Mr. Mac-1 lean) merely proposes that the House should summon the returning officer for West Durham that it may be put in possession of the 1 fact whether Mr. Thornton or Mr. Beith had y I the majority of votes. With that informa-

tion, the House will have no option but to seat the candidate having the majority of votes. This will not be interfering with the court. The court has not reached any finding, by reason of the judges being divided in opinion. Though an appeal is now being heard in the Supreme Court now, it must be remembered that the power in this House is greater than that of any court of Canada. It was the duty of the House before this-but it is not yet too late-to summon the returning officer and make him account for his conduct. The House cannot absolve itself from responsibility for the acts of its officer. Speaking entirely from the view of a layman, there is no escape for the government, but to put aside all question of connecting the case of West Durham election with this Bill, forthwith to summon the offending officer before the bar of this House and put itself in possession of the facts which of the candidates had the greater number of votes, and to seat that candidate in this House.


Mr. BRITTON.: In the remarks I am about to make, I do not wish to be misinterpreted, misquoted or misjudged. I say, and say sincerely, that I endorse what was stated by the hon. Solicitor General before recess in regard to this matter. I regret that we are in the position we occupy with regard to this matter. But. we are here not of our own seeking, and we must deal with the facts as they are. I should have been glad if the returning officer had thought proper-as I think he ought to have done- to return Mr. Thornton because he had the majority of votes. But he did not do tliac. Mr. Thornton had the opportunity, had he thought proper to do so. had he been advised to do so by those in whose hands he placed himself, to let the matter stand, and ask this House to put him right. He had an opportunity of asking this House to put him right, and lie did not take advantage of it. He instead went to law. He filed his petition against the returning officer in order to compel the returning officer to return him as elected. It is a common expression that those who go to law must abide by it, and having started legal proceedings.' he ousrht not to complain of the issue.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman complains that Mr. Thornton initiated legal proceedings against the sheriff and therefore has no right to come in now and ask relief of this House. But had he a fair right to assume that if he did not take these legal proceedings, this House would have given him that relief ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: I fail to see why not. But he choose to take legal proceedings, and the question is not one that can be decided off-hand either by this House or by the court. It may be that there are hon. gentlemen in this House on one side or the other who may have committed a mistake similar to that which Mr. Thornton made, but to whose


James Clancy: return no objection was taken. Mr. Thornton is probably not the first candidate who has committed an illegality, but in other cases, no objection having been raised, the parties did not have to suffer the consequences. At all events, it is not so easy a question to decide off-hand that some hon. gentlemen seem to think. The judges certainly did not find it so. It may be that the cheque deposited would, to all practical purposes, be a compliance with the law, but if not, any elector was entitled to take advantage of the illegality. Mr. Thornton having taken proceedings, the matter came before the courts. But in the meantime, an elector in the riding, acting within his rights, filed a petition against the return of Mr. Thornton and also against the returning officer. There was a petition on the files of the court challenging the return of Mr. Thornton on the two grounds. Hirst, because he never was a candidate at all, not having made a legal deposit ; and second, that even if he had made a legal deposit, he was unduly elected because of corrupt practices. I understand that one of the judges thought that relief should be given to Mr. Thornton and that he ought to be returned as elected. But the other judge thought the court could not try the one petition alone, but should have the whole matter before them, and this was one of the | reasons, among others, given for that deci-! sion. Under the law, an election has to be complained of, not twenty-one days after the return as formerly, but within forty days from the date of the election, and these had gone by when the case came on for trial. That was one of the reasons given why one of the judges thought that the whole matter should be before them before the court, could dispose of it. The two judges therefore disagreed, there was no judgment one way or the other, and the matter dropped.
Then Mr. Thornton made an application before one of the judges to set aside the petition. A decision was given by the judge declining to set aside the petition and asserting the rights which Mr. Burnham has in the matter. As an elector of the west riding of Durham, Mr. Burnham has the right to have the law interpreted as it stood on the statute-book at the time of the election, and we cannot here foreclose him absolutely of his rights in this matter.


William Findlay Maclean: What about the rights of the people of West Durham ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: Mr. Burnham is one of the people, and I do not know that the hon. gentleman is entitled himself to speak for the majority of the electors.


James Clancy: The majority have spoken.


Byron Moffatt Britton: But the minority has rights, and any one of the minority is entitled to have the law interpreted by the [DOT]

judges of the land, and therefore what is the use of now summoning the returning officer.


William Findlay Maclean: Because this House has the right to correct a wrong.


Byron Moffatt Britton: This House has no right to come in and say that a person who took proceedings under the law, as it stood on the 7th November last, shall he turned out of court by reason of any resolution of this House. We have no right to pass what is called ex post facto legislation. In countries where there is a written constitution it is unconstitutional to do so, and so it is with us. It we could do it in one case, we can do do it in others. We could take any case that has been decided by the courts and say that while the case was decided on the law as it stood at the time, we are going to declare that something different was the law, and therefore will reverse the decision.
What new facts could we get by having the returning officer come here ? He would say that on counting the votes Mr. Thornton had a majority of 40, but because he did not make the deposit in the manner required by law, he chose, upon the best legal advice that could be had, to decide to make no return.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman attach value to the legal opinions given in that case ?	.


Byron Moffatt Britton: Why not ?


James Clancy: Then the hon. gentleman must conclude that all lawyers would be of the same opinion, and that as lawyers never disagree there ought to be no cases brought into court.


Byron Moffatt Britton: That is a non-isequitur. In this particular case, we ought not to question the honesty of the returning officer. No doubt some of the electors impressed the view on * him that he ought not to make a return, and having taken legal advice, he' would have been ill-advised if he did not follow it. The matter is before the courts and if we were to interfere in this case we might just as well interfere in any other. Supposing we should change the law, we have no right to declare something to be law on any day previous to the passage of the new law, which was not law at the time of passing it. That is what is asked for here, that although the law was that the money should be deposited, and although the electors, some of them, are acting upon that, we are asked to say that that was really not the law, but that the returning officer might accept a cheque. That is all I can say on the subject. Having expressed once or twice the opinion I hold in regard to what Mr. Thornton ought to have done,
I thought that the leader of thei opposition agreed to that proposition, and that he stated that ex post facto legislation was dan-127
gerous legislation and therefore we ought not to pass it.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman hardly deals with the real question. The real question is not one of Mr. Thornton or Mr. Beith at all, the real point is that this constituency of West Durham is unrepresented on account of the unwise action of an officer of this House. He did not follow the advice of either of the gentlemen whose advice he took, he followed the advice of only one of them, because their opinions disagreed. If the hon. gentleman will look at the opinions, which are to be found on pages 9 and 10 of the Votes and Proceedings, he will see what Mr. Ayles-worth's view of the case was. Mr. Ayles-worth apparently thought that Mr. Thornton should be returned with a special statement of the facts ; Mr. Riddell, on the other hand, took the ground that the constituency should be left unrepresented and that neither candidate should be returned. The language of Mr. Aylesworth is this :
To return Mr. Thornton as elected without making any mention of the invalidity of his nomination paper would be to ignore that invalidity altogether. To return the other candidate, who has not received a majority of the votes cast, would certainly not be right. Under these circumstances, apparently, your only course is to make a special return, stating the facts, and leave the mattter to be dealt with by the proper tribunals of the country.
Every word Mr. Aylesworth said1 is consistent with the view that the returning officer should have returned Mr. Thornton with a special statement of the facts, leaving it open to any elector to present a petition against Mr. Thornton's return and to have it declared that the election was void.


Mr. HUGHES (North Victoria).: There is one important point in connection with this matter which I have not heard brought out. The marked cheque was handed to the returning officer the day previous to the nomination, the returning officer took the marked cheque, deposited it in the hank, drew the cash, and placed it to his own credit in another bank. I fail to see how any returning officer, having done that twenty-four hours before the nomination, could declare that he had not the cash in his hand at the time of the nomination.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The question of the West Durham election is no doubt a very interesting question, and one that will be fully discussed at the proper time. But it seems to me that is all that can he said about it now. The question is not as to whether West Durham is represented in this House, the question is as to whether an amendment to the law, which has been made necessary, as a result of this election, is going to pass. It seems to me that this discussion, interesting as it is, has nothing to do with the question before the commit-



tee, as to whether this section should pass or not.


Byron Moffatt Britton: As I read Mr. Ayles-worth's opinion, it is clear on the point I made :
The Election Act is very distinct in providing that no nomination paper shall be valid and acted upon by the returning officer unless the deposit of $200 in cash is made with the returning officer at the time. In the present case that was not done, and I am therefore of opinion that Mr. Thornton's nomination paper was not valid, and that it ought not to have been acted upon by you.
After giving the circumstances, and after referring to what the leader of the opposition just now said, Mr. Aylesworth says, in his last sentence :
Under these circumstances, apparently, your only course is to make a special return, stating the facts, and leaving the matter to be dealt with by the proper tribunals of the country.


William Findlay Maclean: One of which is the '.House of Commons.


Byron Moffatt Britton: That may he, and one of which is the courts, where the case is now.


Mr. WARD.: I would like to ask the hon. member for Kingston if he considers that the deposit made with the returning officer in the West Durham case, was valid or invalid ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: Well, inasmuch as the learned counsel, who were paid and, I have no doubt largely, for their opinion, did not express an opinion, I decline to say one way or the other.


Henry Alfred Ward: Because the hon. gentleman stated in the course of his remarks that it was not a valid deposit. That is further than any of these opinions have gone yet. Now, the Solicitor General, I think, misapprehended the decision of the trial judges with regard to this election case. They simply decided that the two petitions should be tried separately.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Yes, I think I was wrong about that.


Henry Alfred Ward: And that consequently the delay occurred in deciding either way. Now it seems to me that this is the proper time for the House to take hold of the matter and to bring it to a conclusion by seating one or other of the gentlemen who contested the seat. The constituency has been unrepresented, and I can fully endorse wliat my hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has said, that the fact has created a great deal of unsettled feeling in that constituency, and does not redound to the credit of the government or of the House. Now, I desire to get the return of the returning officer on the records of the House, and for that purpose I shall read a portion of it, so that members who are not
Mr. FITZPATRICK,
familiar with it may understand exactly its nature.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: That is all very much out of order.
Mr. MACLEAN- We are going to ask that this legislation be made retroactive.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: But why don't you argue it at the proper time ?


Henry Alfred Ward: I think the proper time will never come unless we take it up at the present moment.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hon. gentleman knows that he can bring it up any day when we go into Committee of Supply.


Byron Moffatt Britton: Is not the same return on page 5 of the Votes and Proceedings ?


Henry Alfred Ward: Perhaps, but I want to refer to certain portions of it.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: How could any reference to the West Durham election be included in and form part of an Act to amend the Dominion Elections Act ?


Henry Alfred Ward: As the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) has said, it may be made retroactive. I will not read the whole report, as I do not wish to weary the committee, but I will read that portion of it with regard to the payment of the money :
On Monday, the S9th day of October, 1900, Mr. E. H. McLean, of the village of Newcastle, in the electoral district of West Durham, a practicing barrister and solicitor, called on me at my office in Bowmanville and left with me a paper purporting to be signed by Mr. C. Jonas Thornton, of the township of Clarke, in said electoral district, appointing Mr. Robert Russell Loscombe, of Bowmanville aforesaid, a practicing barrister and solicitor of long standing in said town, as liis financial agent during said election.
On Tuesday, the 29th day of October, 1900, the Mr. Loscombe referred to called on me at my office in Bowmanville and asked me if Mr. McLean had left with me a nomination paper for Mr. Thornton. I told him that he had not, and that I had no nomination paper for him. He told me that he expected that Mr. McLean had left it with me the day before. He then said, ' I will pa,y you the deposit required now, and Mr. McLean can bring it in again.' He then offered me a cheque drawn on the agency of the Standard Bank of Canada at Bowmanville, signed by Mr. C. J. Thornton, payable to the said Mr. Loscombe or order, endorsed by the said Mr. Loscombe, and ' marked good ' by the said agency of said bank.
I took up the cheque and looking at it said to Mr. Loscombe, 'This is not in accordance with the requirements of the Act, which says that the deposit has to be in legal tender or bank hills.' Mr. Loscombe replied, ' This is all right, it does not make any difference.' Knowing that Mr. Loscombe was an old practicing lawyer, mayor of the town, and a prominent man, and feeling that I was not competent to argue the question with him, and that I had done all my duty in warning him, I said no more. I thereupon made out and handed to him a receipt for the cheque, showing by the receipt that I had received from him $200, which he took and went away. I

have stated all the conversation which took place between Mr. Loscombe and myself at the time in any way referring to or hearing upon the nomination paper, cheque, payment of the money, or the money itself. I, immediately after Mr. Loscombe went away, went from my office as stated, took the cheque to the agency of the Ontario Bank and deposited same to my credit, in an account of mine in the said bank.
On Wednesday, the 31st day of October, 1900, Messrs. Loscombe and McLean came to me, when I was sitting with my election clerk, at the time and place appointed by the proclamation for receiving nominations, and between 12 o'clock noon and two o'clock in the afternoon, and handed to me a nomination paper, apparently properly signed by thirty-one electors in the presence of a witness, nominating Mr. Charles Jonas Thornton, of the aforesaid township of Clarke, farmer, for the position of member for the said electoral district. The said nomination paper had affixed to it the consent of the said Charles Jonas Thornton, duly signed by him, in the presence of the same witness, who signed his name to signify that he had seen the said electors and Mr. Charles Jonas Thornton sign the said nomination paper and consent respectively. That, as the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) has said, shows that payment was actually made, that the returning officer gave his receipt, and afterwards made this special return. It has already been pointed out by the hon. leader of the opposition that the opinion of Mr. Aylesworth did not go as far as the returning officer expected. He simply stated that a special return should be made to the proper tribunal and that the proper tribunal should decide the matter. I contend this is the proper tribunal to decide that matter, and that something should be done to remedy the wrong in this matter, by reason of which the east riding of Durham has so far been unrepresented in this parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: Before clause 2 is adopted, there was a matter which was brought to the attention of the hon. Solicitor General, and which he promised to consider ; that is to say. dealing in a summary manner with difficulties such as have arisen in the West Durham case. The hon. gentleman will remember that it was pointed out to him that a difficulty about a recount is dealt with in a very summary manner before a county court judge. Would it not be possible that a difficulty, such as has arisen in this case, should be dealt with in a summary manner instead of by the cumbrous and expensive manner of an election petition ? The hon. gentleman may have some scheme for dealing with such a difficulty to propose to the committee.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I have thought over the difficulty that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) speaks of, and I would like to get through the clauses we have in this Bill and have a debate on all the clauses as far as possible until we get to the end of it, leaving one or two open for discussion, and I will consider how far we can go to meet the difficulty suggested 127J
by the hon. gentleman. I would like to know if he has any suggestion to offer to meet the point. It has been almost impossible for me to think of a scheme that would meet the difficulty. The difficulties, I apprehend that the hon. gentleman would like to have dealt with in a summary manner, would be those connected with preliminary objections, to have what is known as a scrutiny in England, a determination of certain preliminary formalities or legal objections without undergoing a long and tedious trial. But, the difficulty is to consider what are the questions which would be dealt with in a summary way and the next question would be how to deal with them. I must admit that I have not been able to formulate any scheme up to the present time that would commend itself to my own judgment. If any hon. gentleman in opposition has thought of a scheme I would be very glad to have his suggestion.


William Findlay Maclean: I can give the hon. gentleman a suggestion to secure the trial of such cases in a speedy way, and it is to try them in parliament. You could get speedy and absolute justice in such a case. I am sorry to see this House leaving this question to the courts. The returning officer in this case has acted contrary to the law, and this House ought to rectify that mistake and give Mr. Thornton his seat. If parliament would decide these questions itself and not give all its rights over to the courts, a great many of these cases could be easily settled. We do not do so because of our lack of courage to take the law into our own hands and right these wrongs. I think it is for parliament to be seized of cases of this kind. The feeling of the country is that Mr. Thornton ought to be sitting here representing West Durham, and that these legal ghosts, these legal fictions, are keeping them out. I say brush away these legal fictions and let the House assume the jurisdiction which belongs to it as a representative Chamber. I want to tell hon. gentlemen opposite that public opinion is leaving them in Ontario, that their party is demoralized because of what they have done.


The PRIME MINISTER.: What have they done ?


William Findlay Maclean: The government should stop all this, and should adopt a method for dealing in a summary way with these cases.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The summary way that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) suggests reminds one of the summary proceedings adopted by Judge Lynch. That appears to be the method he would like to have applied to cases of this sort.


William Findlay Maclean: That is a good lawyer's argument; it is the old argument. There cannot be any justice except lawyer's justice or mob justice. I refuse to have the

acts of the House of Commons characterized as lynch law and to have the members characterized as abandoned lynchers- on this side of the House, anyway. We have the opportunity to have justice done in this case, and, as a layman and an ordinary citizen, I protest against all these legal fictions that are put up by the lawyers, and which stand in the way of doing substantial justice in this grievance.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I think we will go back to section 1, which, I understand the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) is prepared to discuss.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: One of the amendments I had intended proposing to this Act in reference to elections in the North-west Territories was that referred to already by the hon. Solicitor General, in reference to the clerical error where there was no subsection (h) and which was changed to subsection (g). If the hon. Solicitor General will refer to section 64 he will see that subsections 1, 2 and possibly 3, apply to other portions of the section do not apply to the North-west Territories. For instance, there is one subsection which refers to the case of provincial disqualification. That cannot apply to an election in the Northwest, because we have no provincial disqualification there. Again, in reference to the following subsection where one portion of a municipality is within one's constituency and one portion in another, it does not apply to the North-west. From subsection 5 on, they cannot apply to the North-west Territories. Of course they do not do any great amount of injury, but they are useless, and the matter which I had in my mind more particularly, and which I would direct the hon. gentleman's attention to,	is section 48 of the
North-west Territories Representation Act, by which at the present time certificates are granted to electors-if they happen to be on the side of the government candidate- any time within the eight days. The lists are posted up by the enumerator, who prepares them eight days prior to the election. It has been the practice in the past election that friends of the government could secure certificates at any time within these eight days, but as the list is not supposed to be finally revised until two days before the election, opponents of the government could not secure any certificate from the officer until within these two days, and they were, therefore, placed at a very great disadvantage. Many electors may be in a remote part of the constituency, and it is impossible to secure these certificates in time to reach them before the day of voting. The Solicitor General will, I think, admit that the granting of certificates within the two days prior to the election is not sufficient in point of time. My amendment proposes to place both parties on the same plane, and to allow Mr. MACLEAN.
a voter to obtain a certificate at any time within the eight days. It has been argued that you cannot very well grant certificates until the lists are finally revised, but, as a matter of fact, they have been granted to friends of the government within these eight days. The revision is rather a farce, because it takes place before the same officer who compiles the list ; he is not only the enumerator who prepares the list, but he is the revisor as well. Again, the lists are not finally revised two days prior to the election, because under an amendment proposed by Mr. Davin, in the second session of 1890, the lists can still be further revised on the day of election, because a man can get his name on the list as he is going to poll his vote. That cannot be any valid objection why the certificate cannot be issued within the eight days. Does not the Solicitor General think that it is just and fair to both political parties that voters should be granted the certificates at any time within the eight days ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: This law is made applicable only so far as it is not inconsistent with the North-west Territories Representation Act. When the Election Act was introduced a year ago, it was intended to make it applicable in its entirety to the North-west Territories, and practically to do away with the distinction as between the North-west Territories and the other provinces in the matter. The people in the North-west protested unanimously against the change, and I think expression was given to the protest by Mr. Davin. Under the circumstances we have nothing to do except to apply the law as we find it. We are not responsible for the law ; we simply apply, it as it has been applied for many years past. These difficulties that my hon. friend (Mr. Roche) suggests, necessarily imply misconduct on the part of the enumerator, and if he has acted in the way described, he can be proceeded against under the provisions of the North-west Territories Act.


William James Roche: By whom ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Any one can proceed to recover the penalties which are imposed by the North-west Territories Act, upon those who do not comply with the law.


William James Roche: Has the Solicitor General any objection to incorporate a clause providing that the enumerator shall have one particular place of residence or an office ? I have called the Solicitor General's attention to this matter before.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: That would have to be in the North-west Territories Act. We cannot remedy that in this Act.


William Findlay Maclean: Or, in other words, we have no jurisdiction over our own Act.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Oil, yes ; we have, but, we have a faculty for here dealing with one thing at a time.


William James Roche: The Solicitor General may not be aware of the fact that the enumerators have issued blank certificates to friends of the government, allowing them to fill in the names of electors, and have refused to give these certificates to opponents of the government. Surely that can be remedied.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The enumerator gives a certificate that the man who applies for it has a vote.


William James Roche: They have been issued en bloc and without names filled in. The names are then filled in by the party friends. That never was the intention of the Act.
The SOLICITOR 'GENERAL. That is a fraud.


Robert Laird Borden: It may be a fraud, and what the Solicitor General says as to the punishment, may be so, but that is not any great satisfaction to electors who are deprived of the right to vote-as I understand a great many were in the last election-by misconduct of this kind. It Is the duty of this parliament not only to provide punishment for men guilty of such conduct, but also to take effective measures to prevent that misconduct so far as it interferes with the franchise. The argument put forward by my hon. friend (Mr. Roche) In favour of this amendment is, therefore, perfectly justifiable. The Solicitor General should tell us what the policy of the government is with regard to correcting these evils. If he cannot correct them in this Bill, the government could very easily correct them in some other Act. It is a very simple thing to declare that. My hon. friend (Mr. Roche) has placed upon the Order paper a Bill which seems designed to cure these evils. If the Solicitor General cannot insert those amendments in this Bill-and I admit it is probably not the proper place for them-why does he not bring down a Bill for the purpose of correcting these evils. It is no answer to say that this statute has been in force for a certain number of years. That may be true, and yet, the evils may have only recently developed. It appears they have developed during the past year, and now is the time to cure them.


Thomas Walter Scott: In what way is it alleged that the electors were deprived of the right to vote in the Territories ?


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) has apparently not been listening. I understand that the enumerators have absented themselves for the purpose of preventing certain electors getting
on the lists. There is a clause in the Bill prepared by my hon. friend (Mr. Roche) to prevent that. He also alleges that blank certificates were issued. There is a clause in the Bill for the purpose of preventing that. Does my hon. friend (Mr. Scott) think that it is bad legislation to attempt to prevent things of that kina ? Is he prepared to say that no instances of that kind has occurred ?


Thomas Walter Scott: That is just the point. I should think that when a complaint as serious as this has been alleged in the House, that something in the nature of proof should be submitted.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend (Mr. Scott) seems to have rather remarkable ideas of legislation. I would have thought that a statement of an hon. gentleman in the House that evils of this kind have occurred would satisfy my hon. friend (Mr. Scott). Indeed, I cannot see just what objection my hon. friend (Mr. Scott) has to this. If these evils have not occurred, what is the harm in passing the legislation. My hon. friend (Mr. Scott) seems somewhat exercised at the idea that such legislation should pass. Would the hon. gentleman enlighten the House as to the cause of his anxiety with regard to that ? When an hon. member of this House stands up and tells us that evils of this kind have occurred, is it to be required that he shall produce affidavits ? If so, the legislation of this session, judged upon such lines, would be very meagre indeed. Since I have had the honour of being a member of this House, I have not heard of any affidavits being introduced in connection wit]} legislation. I cannot see the objection to passing legislation of this kind for the purpose of preventing evils which an hon. member of this House says have occurred, and which it is apparent might occur under the conditions which exist at present.


Thomas Walter Scott: I have simply to say that the statements made in support of the legislation that is suggested casts a very serious reflection upon a large number of 'election officers in the last general election in the North-west Territories. It may be presumptuous in me to think that something in, the nature of proof should be submitted in support of that very serious reflection cast upon a large number of citizens. I know that the charge has been made outside of this House, and it is made by implication here, that certain election officers in the North-west Territories did by untoward acts prevent certain .electors from polling their votes on the 7th of November last. That charge is made with respect to officers of the district of Western Assiniboia.


Hon. Mr. PRIOR.: Might I ask the hon.
gentleman if he was not the means of lock-

ing up some of the electors during the election ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I have no knowledge of having been the means or the instrument of any such action as that. It is a fact, just the same, that a couple of electioneering agents overstepped the bounds of the law in a certain part of Western Assiniboia, and the officers of the law found it necessary to lock them up, and they were kept locked up during polling day. With that action I had nothing whatever to do. I was going to say that there were some electors in Western Assiniboia who were unfortunately deprived of their franchise on the 7th of November last ; but that was not the fault of any of the election officers. The gentleman who was the Conservative candidate in Western Assiniboia took it upon himself to give an interpretation of the North-west Territories election law to his friends, and certain of them were misled by it, and by that means were deprived of the privilege of casting their ballots. I may say that the law contemplates that some of the electors may not find it possible to cast their ballots within the polling subdivision in which they reside, and that circumstance is provided for by the issue of certificates. An elector who is in that position has the privilege of providing himself with a certificate of agency from the candidate and with a certificate from the enumerator, the official who prepares the list within the polling subdivision. The Conservative candidate took it upon himself to advise the electors that these certificates were not required at all, and certain of the electors who had received that advice attempted on polling day to cast ballots in other subdivisions than the ones in which they resided. The election officers, having been advised by the returning officer, as I understand, of the proper interpretation to be placed upon the Act, could not properly, and did not permit such voters to take the oath or to vote.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman has not attempted to deny that these infractions of the law have taken place. He seems to base his whole argument on the point that I have not produced any proof. Well, I have it on the very best authority, not from ond gentleman alone, but from several who took part in the Northwest elections, that such illegal practices took place, and that the enumerators issued certificates, not only during the eight days, but in blank, to their own political friends, and refused them to their political opponents. But the hon. gentleman should have no objection, as the hon. leader of the opposition says, if he sees a loop-hole in the law for such practices, to have the law amended so as to prevent them taking place in the future. To-day he may be the beneficiary of the operation of this Act; but it may cut two ways. Some day the hon. gentleman may be in opposition, and he may


Edward Gawler Prior: then find that the law will work the other way, unless he expects better treatment under the Conservative regime than we have had under the Liberal regime. At any rate, an Act on the statute-book should be designed to prevent such practices, and that is the object of my amendment. The hon. gentleman knows that two days are too short a time in which to grant a certificate. Can the hon. gentleman state that certificates were not granted to his friends within eight days prior to the two days ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I have no knowledge of it.


William James Roche: My information is that that was the case. There are a great many railway men who cannot possibly vote in their own subdivisions, and it is impossible to get the certificates to them within two days so as to enable them to vote in other subdivisions. The object of my amendment is to allow both sides to obtain their certificates within the eight days, and I do not see what objection the hon. gentleman can have to such an amendment if he desires to have a law which will be perfectly fair to both sides.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Are there any other amendments required to the North-west Territories Elections Act 1


William James Roche: There are one or two others. Previously there were only about ten enumerators appointed to compile the lists ; but I understand that in Western Assiniboia there were something like eighty enumerators at the last elections. That means a great deal of patronage. I think that is too many, while ten may be too few. Then, the hon. gentleman will see that there is not now included in the Act any special penalty against officers for issuing blank certificates. I think there should be penalties provided in those cases.


Robert Laird Borden: I trust that the Solicitor General will take these matters into consideration and endeavour to put the law on such a basis that it will be satisfactory to the public as a whole, and will prevent abuses such as those which have been pointed out by my hon. friend from Marquette, if they really exist. That such an amendment should be a reflection upon any one 'seems absurd. If there was anything in that suggestion, it would be the duty of parliament to repeal the Criminal Code as a most scandalous reflection on the whole people of Canada.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: My hon. friend will see that it is impossible, even if I were willing to do so, to amend the North-west Territories Elections Act tonight. Having consulted other members of the government on the subject, I am in a position to say that I will consider all those amendments and see how far we can go towards enacting the changes which hon. gen-

tlemen suggest. After their explanations, I will he in a better position to appreciate the necessity for the amendments, but at the same time I do not wish this to be taken as a pledge that at the next session I will deal with the matter. But I shall certainly consider it.


Andrew B. Ingram: I notice that the hon. member for Assiniboia says that certain electors, acting as agents, were allowed to vote elsewhere than where they reside. Under our Election Act there can be only two agenis to each candidate, and I would like to know whether more than two are allowed in the law applying to the Northwest Territories.


Thomas Walter Scott: That is not the limit in the North-west Territories Act.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the Solicitor General say that our Election Act does not apply to the North-west Territories so far as agents are concerned ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I would not like the leader of the opposition and the hon. gentleman from Marquette (Mr. Roche) to go away with the idea that I have been raising objections to any reasonable amendments for the improvement of the election law. What I objected to entirely were the reflections cast, without proper authority, on a large number of gentlemen in the Northwest Territories.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am not satisfied with the answer of the hon. gentleman. In the North-west Territories Act I find it provided that in addition to the deputy returning officer and poll clei'k each candidate and his agent, and in the absence of the candidate, any two agents, and no others, can vote elsewhere than where they reside.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. member for Assiniboia led us to believe that there is some special provision in the North-west Act by which any number of voters who had a vote in other polling subdivisions, could, if furnished with these certificates, vote elsewhere in the riding than where they resided.


Thomas Walter Scott: I believe that is the law at present.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman point it out in the North-west Territories Act ?


William Humphrey Bennett: If it be the law in the Territories that a number of voters who may be absent from home and by chance happen to be in another particular locality, but in the same riding, may there record their votes, it is a manifest injustice to permit the returning officer to hand over to any candidate a number of blank certificates.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: That cannot be the law.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman cannot object to incorporating a clause to the effect that it will be a misdemeanour for the returning officer to do so. If there is no penalty provided, there is nothing to prevent the returning officer doing it.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Sections 19 and 20 of our Election Act, if not already made applicable to the North-west Territories, could be made applicable. These sections go very far towards punishing any one guilty of malfeasance in connection with an election.


William Humphrey Bennett: Would the handing of a blank certificate be a malfeasance ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It is not conceivable that the returning officer should have the right to issue blank certificates.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is it a punishable offence ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It should be made punishable. It cannot be done now.


James Clancy: I would like to ask the opinion of the Solicitor General, with the view of having some steps taken in the future to prevent this abuse. It is beyond question that no more than two agents from each polling subdivision can vote elsewhere than at their own polling subdivision. But at every election that came under my notice during the last election, persons not intended by the Act to have this right exercised it. It was found, perhaps not more :it the last election than at former ones, that men came in at the last hour, who had not served a moment as agents, with certificates permitting them to vote. True they did not exceed the number of two agents at each poll to each candidate, but still that was contrary to the intention of the Act. I would like the Solicitor General to give his views as to the rights of these parties to vote under such circumstances.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The intention was to enable those to vote who occupy the positions indicated out of the place they were entitled to vote, and any attempt beyond that is clearly a violation of the provisions of the Election Act.
On section 3,


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: If we
adopt this section, it means that we are going to do away with the stamp which the returning officers use for the stamping of ballots. It is for the House to say whether they are of the opinion or not that that should be 'done. Under the Election Act of last session, provision was made that each returning officer should be provided with a stamp, and each ballot paper, as it left the returning officer to go to his deputies, should have a stamp put upon it. The intention of the amendment is to do away with that and

substitute another ballot which will give additional security. The matter is entirely in the hands outlie House. The amendment is suggested by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, who says that the law subjects the returning officer to a great deal of inconvenience, because in some constituencies there is an enormous number of ballots used.


Robert Laird Borden: I would suggest that we consider this section together with section 4, which deals with the same matter.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I think that is a good suggestion.
On sections 3 and 4,


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: 'We take these two together. The first amendment here is to paragraph E of subsection 1 of section 41, which has reference to the stamp, as I said. Then, section 48, subsection 1- the change there is the omission of the word ' blank,' before the word ' counterfoil.' The intention is that the counterfoil shall bear a number corresponding with the number on the stub, for identification purposes, and so the word 1 blank ' must be omitted. With reference to subsection 4, the change is that the paj^er for the printing of the ballot papers shall be provided by the King's Printer and not by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery represents that it is perfectly impossible for him, with the limited space at his disposal, to put away all the paper which lie must get from the King's Printer. He is merely the channel through which the paper passes from the King's Printer to the returning officer. Subsection 5 is the one to which I wish the particular attention of the committee. This is intended to Xirovide an additional guarantee to take the place of the guarantee which we had in the stamp put on the ballot. Instead of the stamp, it is provided that the ballot paper shall bear on the back a number which is the number on the stub.


William Humphrey Bennett: On the counterfoil ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: No, the stub. 'Starting with the stub and going on from that-there will be on the counterfoil a number corresponding with that on the stub, and there will be on the back of the counterfoil another number corresponding with the number of the voter in the poll book. When a voter comes into the polling booth, the deputy returning officer will tear off a ballot, leaving the stub behind. The stub remains in tlje possession of the deputy returning officer and the ballot is put into the hands of the elector. That will bear first a number corresponding with the number on the stub and also a number corresponding with the number on the poll book, and the returning officer then initials it.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: 


Mr. COCHRANE.: Is not the hon. gentleman's (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick's) statement misleading ? We understand the ballot paper to be the ballot paper proper, while the number, as I understand it, will appear on the counterfoil.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: There will be a number on the counterfoil and a number on the stub. When the voter leaves the returning officer, he takes with him the ballot with the counterfoil attached. On that counterfoil there will be a number corresponding with the number in the poll book and also a number corresponding with the number on the stub. This counterfoil is taken off and the ballot is deposited in the ballot box without anything upon it except the initials of the returning officer. All that is on the counterfoil up to that time is for the purpose of identification, so that the deputy returning officer may know that the paper he received from the voter is the same one as the paper he gave to the voter.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: It will be harder to educate a scrutineer up to all this than when it was a mere question of a stamp on the ballot.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then the stamp will be discarded ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: If this is adopted, yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I' think that will be a mistake. A scrutineer can more readily detect a ballot by the stamp than by numbers, especially where voting is done somewhat hurriedly. It would be the ea'siest thing in the world for a scrutineer to omit ascertaining the number on a ballot. I have always thought the stamp very important, because it cannot be easily duplicated, and it is easy for one to see as the ballot is presented, making it difficult to substitute another paper for a ballot. Ballots could be easily printed, but it was not so easy to get them stamped.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The process suggested is more involved, but it gives equal security. I say frankly that I put these amendments before the committee, desiring to take the opinion of the committee upon them. I am not committed to these proposals. It has been suggested to me that the present system is inconvenient, but I am not disposed to go further than is necessary in considering the convenience of officials, so long as it is in their power to do their duty. What we should have in mind is to secure an election law that will be free from the inconveniences that have been found in the past.


William Findlay Maclean: Is the object of this law to do away with the trick by which a man secures one ballot and uses it to get others ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I do not think that fraud can be practised with the

system I have suggested. That is the worst kind of fraud and should l)e stopped. The stub with the number always remains in the possession of the returning officer, and in order to commit a fraud a man must bring back a ballot with the number corresponding to that on the stub. What strikes me is that to which my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) refers, the advantage of the stamp in making it easy for the uninitiated to recognize a ballot. It seems to me that the question of the substitution of ballots has been to a large extent disposed of; at all events, I have not heard of any eom-idaints in the last election. Perhaps this was due to the use of the stamp. My own preference, I must admit, is for the stamp. But others, from their experience, have suggested this method.


William Findlay Maclean: There will be by-elections within the next year or two, probably, and the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) can try these proposals then and judge whether they had better be adopted for the general election.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery has placed in my hands the following statement :
This stamp has been a fruitful source of trouble and annoyance to returning officers without corresponding advantage.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: How would he know that ? From my knowledge of rural constituencies the trouble is on the line I indicated before.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I would like to go on and read this statement :
The paper supplied for printing the ballots could not be procured from any other source, and ballots printed on any other paper could readily be detected. Moreover, the initials of the deputy returning officer on the back of a ballot preclude^ the possibility of any substitution. Accumulating precautions only impede the work of the returning officer. Where 10,000 . to 15,000 ballots-
This is the only point which commends itself to me :
-have to be stamped by hand it is exceedingly difficult to do so in the limit of time allowed. It is also an easy matter to skip one or more ballots in a book of 100, or to break the stamp or mislay it. As a matter ofjact, in numerous instances, the returning officer, whose time was fully engaged with other important duties, had the stamping done by some other person. Pressing requests were made for more than one stamp. I think the stamping should be done away with as an unnecessary and superfluous precaution.
Now this is the opinion of one who was couuected with the management of the last election, and we ought to appreciate it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But it all comes from the returning officer. The stamp was intended to make it impossible for another ballot to be substituted. Personally I know from several of my scrutineers tbat they regarded
the stamp very favourably, because they said it was an easy matter to see whether the stamp was on the ballot or not. I understand tbat all the objection comes from the returning officers. I do not think we should consider their objections as much as the objections of the electors.


Mr. HOLMES.: If you regard the use of the stamp solely from the standard of security, there is no question that it is useful. The stamp is an additional security, although I think with the Solicitor General that with the two counterfoils and the initials there is no necessity for the stamp being used. But if you look at it from the point of convenience for me returning officer, it is very inconvenient indeed. The returning officer must necessarily stamp them by hand, you cannot run it through a printing press, and consequently it takes a long time to do it. In my own riding the returning officer had to sit up two nights in order to stamp the ballots. Of course, looked at from the standpoint of security, the stamp may be an additional security, but with the provision made last year that the paper shall be sent out from the department, there is no possibility of any substitution of ballots.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: In what particular respect does the ballot now suggested differ from the new ballot ? Is there any opportunity for identification left here ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The number corresponding with the number in the ballot-book will be put on the counterfoil, and of course tbat counterfoil is taken from the ballot and the ballot is put into the box, so that when the ballot gets into the box there will be nothing on it except the initials of the returning officer. The form printed here misleads, because the poll-book number would appear to be on the ballot as it goes into the box. Tbat is not the intention at all.


James Joseph Hughes: What is the size of this counterfoil ? In some elections the counterfoil may be an eighth of an inch, in many instances there is virtually uo counterfoil whatever. I would suggest to the Solicitor General that he should regulate the size of the counterfoil as well as the ballot.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I think the Solicitor General is sincere in desiring to make this legislation perfect. I was saying that from my experience in rural constituencies I prefer the1 stamp from the fact that it would be hard to deceive the scrutineers on the line of so many numbers on the stub and on the counterfoil, and it is easy to see the stamp when it is brought in. We know that the initials of the returning officer have been brought in on foreign ballots. Now as the only trouble comes. from the returning officer, I would suggest as a pro-

per security tiiat the returning officer be paid for his trouble, if he is not now paid sufficient, in order that we may preserve the secrecy of the ballot and know that the elector deposits the ballot that he wants to deposit. Let us make the proceeding as simple as we can.


William Findlay Maclean: Does this rubber stamp always follow the circulation of the ballot papers 1	,


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I think so.


William Findlay Maclean: Can they not start with the ballot and keep it going all thej time ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The paper is supplied from the King's Printer here, that is the first security. Then it goes to the returning officer, then the returning officer is supplied with a stamp and he applies the stamp to the ballots. Then these ballots leave the returning officer and reach the deputy with the stamp on them. Of course the stamp must not leave the possession of the returning officer.


William Findlay Maclean: But is not this the fact, that a number of frauds have taken place by reason of a man starting in with a ballot paper given to him initialled, then he goes and gets his $5 perhaps, and when ne comes back he brings back the paper which he got from the returning officer inside.


The PRIME MINISTER.: He cannot do it.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: The Solicitor General will see it is a great deal easier to forge the Initials of one ballot paper than it is to forge a stamp.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I want to retain the stamp myself. We ought to be able, now that we are all here, to see whether the stamp has worked satisfactorily during the last election. So far as my experience goes it worked very well, and I can see no reason for the change. At the same time, those who have had experience as deputy returning officers made these representations, and I thought it my duty to bring them before the House.


Mr. MONK.: I was impressed by the statement read by the Solicitor General that outside men are often employed in stamping, as the returning officer has not time to do all the work. It seems to me that under these circumstances it is better to have the ballots numbered, because it allows fewer people to interfere with the ballots, there is less danger of the ballots being devoted to some illegal purpose. After all, you have the number there and the number on the stub. It is done officially, it is done beforehand, it is printed, and it prevents a lot of people from going to work on these ballots and doing the stamping.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I think the new scheme proposed here affords great se-Mr. COCHRANE.
curity, but it is not so easy of detection. The ordinary unitiated scrutineer has the book with the stamp, that is something that everybody can see. Now that we have used it once everybody knows that the ballot is to be stamped. But this will be a new departure, and when it comes to be a question of examining if the number on the counterfoil corresponds with the number on the stub, the door is open to some jugglery ; whereas, the naked stamp on the back of the ballot is something which is visible to everybody and can be identified at once. But I do not see why we should not retain this stamp along with this numbered counterfoil. It is an additional security.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The stamp does not prevent the possibility of fraud mentioned by the hon. member for East York. The corresponding number on the stub and on the counterfoil would prevent that.


William Findlay Maclean: That is what I understand. I have been told that frauds to the extent of ten or twenty have been committed in one polling booth with the connivance of the returning officer. A party intending to commit a fraud could get possibly one ballot paper. That party, being in a position to get an elector who is willing to be bribed, can put the paper that is stamped in his hand and say : Go in there with the paper as I have marked it, and I will give you $5 if you give me the paper that the returning officer gives you.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That cannot be done with the number on the counterfoil.


William Findlay Maclean: Therefore, I say let us stick to this numbered counterfoil, and if it is necessary, put the stamp on as well. The object of this new law is to stop this circulation of ballot papers.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Since the last amendment, there is a number on the counterfoil. There will be two numbers under the new system, a number on the counterfoil, corresponding with the number on the stub, and there will be a number corresponding with the number on the poll book.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is to hinder any one taking the ballot out with him and bringing in another ballot that he has printed somewhere, putting the number on the ballot that is on the counterfoil, and substituting this counterfeited ballot for the real one ? In the West Huron election case, we found that fourteen ballots were taken out of the booth. The deputy returning officer swore that he thought they were all right, whereas every one of them was a bogus ballot. They were evidently counterfeited, and it is just as easy to put a number on it as to put the deputy returning officers' initials on it.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: This is a printed number.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Cannot you have bogus ballots printed ? They were scattered all over the streets of Broekville.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: That was under the old system.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you abandon the stamp, I think you will abandon the best safeguard we have to prevent the counterfeiting of ballots.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is no doubt that the multiplicity of precautions should insure safety against frauds. In the first place, paper of a special kind is furnished by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to the returning officer. The ballots are printed, they are stamped, they are numbered upon the counterfoil and the stub also. When an elector comes in, another number is put on the counterfoil. The elector presents himself, and if the ballot with which he is furnished is No. 10, that number will be entered on the register. Then, the deputy returning officer will put No. 10 on the counterfoil. It is impossible, under such circumstances, that there could be fraud perpetrated if the scrutineers are at all alive to their duty, because they must see that the corresponding number is' returned to the deputy returning officer. It seems that it is impossible to have any frauds. I think that we should retain the stamp on the ballot as an additional safety.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that the {hinting of the number will afford a precaution, but I do not say that we should dispense with the stamp. As I understand it, when the elector gets his ballot, he finds upon it the initials of the returning officer, and he finds these initials also on the counterfoil.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: No, it is numbered.


Robert Laird Borden: The counterfoil is numbered, and that number corresponds with the number of the voter's name on the ballot book. [DOT]


The PRIME MINISTER.: And with another number also.


Robert Laird Borden: And besides that, on the back of the ballot is a stamp placed there by the returning officer. Then, you have all these means of identifying the ballot when it is brought back by the elector. It is proposed, in addition to have on the stub and upon the counterfoil another [DOT]number printed, or written. I think it would be better to strike out the words : 1 or written,' and have the law provide that the number must be printed.
necessary material to print on the counterfoil.


Robert Laird Borden: There may be something in a suggestion of that kind, but, if at all practicable it would be far better to have it printed. You can forge a number that is written, but you cannot, on the spur of the moment, forge a number that is printed. I suppose these numbers will run from 1 to possibly 10,000, but you will not necessarily have consecutive numbers in each polling booth, so that the ballot will afford a great many precautions as to its identity after it is given to the elector. In the first place, you will have the ballot initialled by the deputy returning officer upon it. On the counterfoil you will have a number written by the deputy returning officer to correspond with the number on the ballot book, and also printed on the counterfoil you will have a number corresponding with the number on the stub. I would be inclined to fall in with the hon. gentleman's suggestion, that while we adopt his amendment to section 48, we might retain the stamp as well.


The SOLICTOR GENERAL.: I understand that to be the opinion of the committee. We will allow these sections to remain in order that I may recast them to retain the present form of the ballot, with the addition of the stamp-in respect to the stamp keeping it as it now is.


James Clancy: The hon. Solicitor General has endeavoured to explain the effect of the ballot. I have watched with some interest, and I have observed that notwithstanding his clearness and his legal attainments, he has had difficulty in making the committee understand it readily. Now, in view of that difficulty, even an hon. gentleman of high standing in the legal profession asks the question : Is this not a ballot similar to the Ontario ballot, which is not a secret ballot ? I merely reiterate the statement made by an hon. gentleman during this discussion. In view of that, and of what has taken place in the committee to-night. I am sure the hon. Solicitor General will have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that any person might undertake to convince another that the ballot is not a secret ballot, and that the elector will have a perfect right to believe it. The hon. gentleman has been addressing himself to what is, perhaps, the most intelligent audience in Canada, and yet, that audience could not clearly, at first sight, grasp his idea, and, perhaps, the same effect will be produced on others. Now, I was going to ask the hon. Solicitor General if he intends to adopt the amendment that I proposed against persons designedly declaring, upon either side, that the ballot is not secret.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: There will be great difficulty in this in the country newspaper offices, where there is not the


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I have considered the Bill of my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) carefully, as I have con-

sidered all the Bills presented having for their object amendments to the Franchise or Election Acts. The Bill Is intended to punish those who seek to convey to the elector the impression that the ballot is not secret. I believe it to he practically impossible to draw a Bill which would meet the object my hon. friend has In view. The suggestion is that if a man libels the secrecy of the ballot he has to pay a penalty. I do not see how it is possible for us to adopt that legislation.


James Clancy: Why not ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It seems to me it would be going further than 1 have ever seen legislation go.


James Clancy: Not at all. I will give the Solicitor General a parallel case. If a person puts in circulation a rumour that a candidate has withdrawn from the field he can be punished. That is precisely a parallel case, although dealing with a different subject.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: We are not going to adopt this Bill to-night, and in view of what my hon. friend has said, I would like to consider the provision he suggests.


Mr. HACKETT.: In Prince Edward Island we have no lists and under our local law you can have the vote of the elector objected to, and then it comes up for scrutiny afterwards. The Dominion statute has a provision that these ballots objected to shall be numbered to correspond with the number opposite the name on the polling list. This brings me to the objection of my friend (Mr. Clancy). At the last election a great deal of intimidation was used. The electors, especially those iu the service of the government, were told that if their ballot was objected to it would be marked and it would be known how they voted. It had a great effect in intimidating electors from voting for the Conservative candidate. Is it the intention of the Solicitor General to still continue the numbering of the ballot where the vote is objected to ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Those of us who heard the discussion which took place last year in reference to the ballot in Prince Edward Island, will admit that the law in the province is such that those of us who do not live in Prince Edward Island are not familiar with it. They do not appear to have voters' lists down there or any of the other human devices which are considered necessary in other parts of Canada. Perhaps my hon. friend would defer the discussion of the amendment until the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies), who makes a specialty of the law in regard to Prince Edward Island, is present.


Edward Hackett: I am quite sure the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Horn Sir Louis Mr. FITZPATRICK.
Davies) has made a specialty of the law there, and he understands these human devices and system of numbering the ballots so that those in the service of the government can be intimidated. It is a great pity we have not voters' lists in that province, but as a matter of fact the province is too poor to have such lists. We are getting in debt every year, and the provincial government do not feel that they are in a position to go to the expense of having voters' lists. We have the old system of an elector coming to the polling booth, swearing he is qualified and then having him objected to by the representative of the opposing candidate. It is rather antiquated, but still it is the system down there, and until we have revising officers or means of securing voters' lists we must put up with the system. But the numbering of the ballot on the back leaves every elector in the province liable to have his vote objected to, and then it can be known how he voted.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Without pretending to discuss the system in Prince Edward Island, I understand it is only in the case of a vote being objected to that a number is put on the back of the ballot for the purpose of identification in order to ascertain afterwards, if necessary, whether or not the person was entitled to vote. Some such provision as that is necessary in view of the fact that you have no voters' list, and that a man practically by his oath gets his right to vote.


Edward Hackett: It leads to greqj: abuses. In my own case I had a recount. In the case of several gentlemen in the service of the government about whom there was some doubt as to the way they would vote, their votes were objected to and a number was placed on the back of the ballot corresponding with the number opposite the name in the poll book, and the lawyers at the recount could easily trace how they voted.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I suppose that goes as a matter of fact.


Edward Hackett: There is no secrecy in the ballot in Prince Edward .Island. They objected to my own vote, thinking, perhaps,
I would vote for my opponent, and as my ballot was numbered there was no difficulty in telling how I voted on the recount. The returning officer, through design or otherwise, put a number on the back of the ballot corresponding with my name in the polling book. There is no secrecy in the ballot so far as Prince Edward Island is concerned. I trust that the government will see that the electors in Prince Edward Is-. land shall be placed on the same footing as electors in other parts of Canada in regard to the secrecy of the ballot.
On section 5,


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: There is a change here which I think is a necessary

one. The ballots go to the deputy returning officers in packets, and as the law reads now it provides that the packets shall be counted. That evidently is a mistake. The
intention is that the ballots themselves shall be counted.


Edward Hackett: I have had quite an experience in recounts. I have had two or three of them, but the last, held on the 10th of November last, was the most serious I ever had. When the ballots were to be produced before the county court judge, it was found that one ballot box containing the ballots cast at a polling division where I had a majority of 33 votes, was missing. It was urged by the gentleman appearing for my opponent that owing to this packet being missing the ballots could not be counted, and in that case I would have been deprived of my seat. I felt it at the time a great evil that the returning officer, coming on the train that evening from Alberton to Summerside, and having in his possession the 27 ballot boxes with their contents, should ship those as freight and place them in the hands of the baggageman, while he and his friends went to the rear ear and took their seats and slept half the way down. When the ballot boxes reached Summerside, it was found that that particular ballot box was missing. The miscreant who took it expected no doubt to deprive me of my rights as the representative of the people of West Prince. He supposed that the judge, not having that box before him, would count the contents of the other 2G boxes, and upon them would declare my opponent elected. However, the judge taking a proper view of the matter, decided that, inasmuch as he had not the ballots before him to recount, he would take secondary evidence and obtain the statements given out by the deputy returning officers at the different polls, especially at this poll for which he had no ballots to count.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: He was a good and a just judge, because he simply applied the law.


Edward Hackett: But I believe, if the case had gone before some other judges in Prince Edward Island, who have given decisions since then, I would not be here to-day as the member for West Prince. I have therefore an amendment to move, which I hope will be accepted by the hon. Solicitor General; that is, to add after the words 'separate packets,' the following :
And should any returning officer appointed under this Act fail to produce all the ballot papers cast in the riding or district for which he was appointed, before the judge at the time and place the same are demanded for a recount, the said returning officer shall be guilty of an indictable offence, and shall be liable to a fine of $1,000 or to imprisonment for not less than two years in default of the payment of such fine.
I trust that the Solicitor General will accept this amendment, as some safeguard should be thrown about the ballot boxes.


Byron Moffatt Britton: What the hon. gentleman proposes has nothing whatever to do with the section under consideration. This refers to the ballot papers being counted if any elector desires to have them counted before the opening of the polls. While I do not suggest at present any objection to the amendment in its proper place, it has nothing to do with this section. In reference to the section itself, I would say that the amendment now sought to be made is what some hon. members, I am among the number, thought the law was intended to be when it was passed in 1900. The plain meaning I took of the provision, and I think other members as well, was that it referred to the counting of the ballots in the packet.
Mr. CLANCY, If the hon. Solicitor General will turn to sections 112 and 118, he will see that what I propose is no more drastic than what we already have, though it refers, of course, to an entirely different matter.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have a note of an amendment which has been suggested to me, and this is perhaps the best place to bring it to the notice of the committee. We have had many cases in our province of deputy returning officers who permit arguments in the polls, but who, when their attention is called to these arguments, refuse to admit the objections of scrutineers. I have known myself of deputy returning officers refusing to accept a written protest handed, in by a scrutineer. It seems to me that there ought to be a law which would make it the duty of a deputy returning, officer to accept any protest in writing, and keep it among the papers as a part of the record. I think this would have a good effect on any officers who are inclined to disregard the sections of the law. This is the subsection which I would propose to be added to section 59 :
It shall be the duty of the deputy returning officer, during polling hours, to accept and place among the records of his poll, any protest, notice or other document in writing, handed in to him from any person legally present in the polling booth, and in case such document be in duplicate, then the deputy returning officer shall endorse upon the duplicate and return the person tendering such document a receipt, mentioning the hour at which such document was filed, and place the other duplicate among the records of his poll.
I did not think there was any provision in the law which obliges a deputy returning officer, to whom a legitimate protest in writing is handed, to accept it and place it among the records of the poll, and I think there are some instances where that would be very useful for the protection of the rights of candidates or even voters.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I am afraid that the effect would he in some instances to block the polls. If there is no limit to the number of protests, an agent could keep writing protests all day and handing them in to the deputy returning officer and thus keep his time fully occupied writing his name on the back of them.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think that is a serious objection. I cannot imagine the scrutineer doing his duty at the polls who would spend his whole time writing out protests. The returning officer would merely give a receipt, and in the case supposed by my hon. friend, he would be busy the whole day writing out the protests. Whereas there are returning officers who will commit mistakes, sometimes willingly and sometimes of malice prepense, and it is impossible to keep a record of them. It is important, therefore, that we should know exactly how and at what time, and in what manner a protest was made.


The PRIME MINISTER.: What would be the effect of such protest ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The returning officer is liable to a penalty, and if at an early hour his attention is ealled to an illegality, he will be often barred from proceeding in his course.


Hon. Mr. ROSS.: At present any objections may be recorded in the poll book. You ask the poll clerk to enter any objections you make to a certain proceeding, and it is part of his duty to make the record in the poll book. He cannot refuse.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is no section in the federal law to that effect.


William Ross: I know that with us we record the objections in the poll book.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is not done with us, and there is nothing in the federal law which obliges the poll clerk to enter an objection in the poll book, and I have known of returning officers who refused to take a written protest.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I will keep this over for the purpose of finding a better place for it if possible.
On section 8,


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: That is to correct a clerical error. The section is referred to in the Bill as section 81 and it should be section 80.


Edward Hackett: My amendment would come in here.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I am afraid that it is impossible to accept this amendment in the form in which it now is, at all events. It is suggested here that we should have the following :
After the words ' separate packets,' add the following : ' and should any returning officer ap-Mr. MONK.
pointed under this Act fail to produce all the ballot papers cast in the riding or district for which he was appointed, before the judge at the time and place, the same as demanded for recount, the said returning officer shall be guilty of an indictable offence, and shall be liable to a line of $1,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour, in default of paying such fine.
This is somewhat drastic, and I think it would expose the returning officer to a penalty for not producing ballot boxes even though he were unable to produce them for good and sufficient cause. I thing if my hon. friend (Mr. Hackett) will look at sections 19 and 20 of the present law he will find that provision is already made for the punishment of any wilful misconduct. Section 19 provides :
Every officer and clerk who is guilty of any wilful misfeasance or any wilful act or omission in violaticn of this Act shall forfeit to any person aggrieved by such misfeasance, act or omission a sum not exceeding $500, in addition of the amount of all actual damage thereby occasioned to such person.
It seems to me that that goes as far as my hon. friend would wish to go. I would ask him to consider these sections and see whether they do not accomplish the object he has in view.


Edward Hackett: The returning officer may not be guilty of wilful neglect, yet difficulties may arise through his fault, and it is found impossible to punish him. In the case to which I have referred, the judge said the conduct of the returning officer was inexcusable, but nothing could be done.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would point out that under section 79 it is provided that any person who tampers with the ballots is guilty of an indictable offence and, if a returning officer, is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 and not less than $300, and to imprisonment for not less than five years.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I had forgotten that. Perhaps my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Hackett) will consider also section 79, which seems to be a sort of omnibus clause that meets almost every case.


Edward Hackett: I cannot see it in the same light as the Solicitor General does. In the case I speak of, the ballot box was opened on the train between Alberton and Summerside. The remains of the box were found covering a distance of two or three hundred yards along the line of railway. The theft occurred at night, and the thief who got into the baggage car knew where the box was located and broke it open. It is not known what he did with the contents. But he threw the broken box outside. The section foreman told me that he had found the bottom of the box about ten yards from the track near the fence at a telegraph post. He found the top of the box half way from there to the next telegraph pole, and

the sides of it at the next telegraph poleshowing that the robber broke the box open on the train. It is evident that his object was to deprive the electors of West Prince of the services of the man whom they had elected on the 7th of November last. I want to hold the returning officer responsible in such cases. If we could find the thief, there would be no difficulty in punishing him. But if you provide in the statute that the returning officer shall be responsible and shall be liable to a penalty or imprisonment if he does not produce these ballots before the judge by whom they are demanded for recount, fewer of these things will occur. The returning officer, instead of watching the ballot boxes from Summerside to Tig-nish, shipped them as freight and he went into the rear car and sat down at his ease for the three or four hours of the trip, leaving the ballot boxes, upon which the most sacred rights of the people of West Prince depended, at the mercy of robbers. I wish to have something to safeguard the ballots of the people and to guarantee that they shall not get into the hands of careless men and to punish those who do not perform their duties.


James Clancy: There is no fair distinction in this case between the man who broke the ballot boxes and those who afforded him the chance to do so. The deputy returning officer in charge of the ballot boxes should be held to strict account, and if, by carelessness, he allows the ballot boxes to fall into the hands of others who destroy them, his punishment should be as great as if he destroyed them himself. Now, it may be difficult to adopt such language as will meet the case without having more in it than you intend, without reaching an innocent man.
On section 10,


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I think there is a mistake here with respect to the back of the ballot paper. It would appear as if the returning officer's number, that is the poll book number, would be on the back of the ballot. I think we ought ito arrange so that there would be a perforated line separating the counterfoil from the ballot, and that the poll book number should not be on the ballot under any circumstances.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Where is it intended to have the counterfoil on that ballot ?
The	SOLICITOR GENERAL.	The
counterfoil should be to the left of the black line. The black space will be the counterfoil.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Why not put the
counterfoil at the right hand ? I think that would be more convenient.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: That is a suggestion. You avoid the difficulty that
might occur with respect to tearing the ballot by having it on the right. The advantage would be that in tearing off the counterfoil the ballot would remain intact.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman mean that it would be tom off the right-hand side of the ballot ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Yes, no matter which side it is on.


James Clancy: It would be possible to tear off the end of the ballot, because that is the end it is on.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: That is
true, I think we had better leave it as it
is.	In other respects, I think the ballot is a fairly good one.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not quite understand what is the meaning of the broad black mark in the form of ballot provided by section 10.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The object is to restrict the space area in which the cross shall be put. On the back of that counterfoil are to be put the number corresponding with the number on the stub, and also the number corresponding with the number in the poll book for identification purposes, so there is no chance of the elector putting his mark there. You have eliminated all chance of putting the mark anywhere except within the line.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: The counterfoil will be relatively wider than that black space.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I apprehend it would be if we put the numbers on
it.	There is no provision anywhere in the law as to the size of the ballot. The King's Printer gets out a stereotype from which they are printed, and that regulates the size of the ballot paper.
On section 11,


James Clancy: This section relates to an amendment which I believe is being proposed in regard to the Franchise Act. It seems to me that it would be well to defer action upon that.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I would like to hear what is to be said about it. It has no reference to the amendment to the Franchise Act suggested by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson), because it is form T that he wants to amend. That is for a voter whose name is not on the list. I am quite willing, when we talk it over, to allow it to remain. The intention is merely to correct the heading, which is misleading.


James Clancy: This is the oath that may be taken by a person who is disqualified under the provincial Act, but who goes to the polling booth and takes the oath necessary to entitle him to vote under the Dominion Elections Act.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It is open to any voter.


James Clancy: Yes, but it may also be taken by this same voter.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: So far as I . am concerned, I may say that the only object of the amendment is to change the heading. The heading, as we have it in the Act, is entirely misleading.


James Clancy: I would draw the hou. gentleman's attention to the fact that if he will look at the Election Act he will see that the heading of form U is exactly the same as schedule T. It is not intended to be the same.


Thomas Barnard Flint: The section stands.
On section 12,


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: That would put the province of Manitoba in the list of provinces where the officials, required for the making of the lists, will be appointed by the Federal government, because, in Manitoba, under the new Act, the lists are only made when the Lieutenant-Governor in Council so determines. They are not made at regualr intervals.


William Findlay Maclean: Had we not better appoint federal officials all over the country, and go back to the old way?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Do not ask me.


William Findlay Maclean: We have had an experiment of this Franchise Act. We have surrendered a great privilege that belongs to the Dominion parliament, and it has not worked out well. The sooner we come back to the old system, adopt a Dominion franchise, make our own list and appoint our own officers, the sooner will we get a better election law. The system has broken down. This surrender to the provincial authorities has been a failure, and I enter my protest against it here and now. I would like that we should go back to the Dominion franchise and be independent of these changes of law that seem to be going on in every province of this Dominion.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Before I ask the committee to rise, I would propose certain amendments to meet the objections of the hon. member for Halton in respect to the affidavit required to be taken by a voter whose name is not on the list. These are just for the purpose of being considered.
5a. Subsection 5 of section 64 of the said Act is hereby repealed and the following substituted
therefor :
' 5. If his name has been omitted from the list of voters on account only of some disqualifying provision of the provincial law specified in section 6 of the Franchise Act, 1898, as amended, he shall, if not otherwise disqualified under the provisions of this Act, be entitled to vote upon


James Clancy: his taking or offering to take the oath in the form T, in addition to any oath which he might have been required to take if his name had been on the list, so far as such last mentioned oath is applicable.'
10a. Form T of schedule 1 to the said Act is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor :-
' T-(Section 64.)
* Oath of qualification of voter whose name is omitted on account of provincial disqualification.
' You swear (or solemnly affirm) that you are legally qualified to vote at this election, and that you verily believe that your name was omitted from the list of voters by reason of your being (here name the office, the holding of which, or the capacity in the public service of Canada or the province, the employment in which, or the profession, calling, employment or occupation, the belonging to or engagement in which, or the class of persons, the belonging to which disqualified or disqualifies the voter from having his name on the list or from voting at a provincial election), at the time such list was prepared and for no other reason. So help you God.'


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: You cover every possible case, so that all the returning officer has to do is to insert in the blank the particular disqualification.


James Clancy: I would remind the hon. gentleman that it goes farther than that. It includes the classes of persons who are disqualified, not only that he belongs to a class of persons described, but a class of persons who are not described.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: This will enable the returning officer to put in the blank the particular cause of disqualification applicable to the voter. The instructions are to the returning officer to name the particular source of disqualification, and the different causes of disqualification are given so that he will know the particular one to pick out.


Robert Laird Borden: He will enumerate the cause of disqualification.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Yes.
6a. Section 7 of said section 64 is repealed, and the following is substituted therefor :
' 7. From any oath which any such person offering his vote at such election may be required to take there shall be omitted any statements as to residence which cannot, by reason of such change of residence as Is mentioned in the next preceding subsection, truthfully make, and instead of such statements, the following paragraph may be added to such oath :-
' That you have resided in the (city or town) of	of which this polling division is
a part continuously from the said day of	19 , (insert here the day
of the first sitting held for registration of manhood suffrage voters, and if the voter has been temporarily absent for any of the purposes allowed by law, insert the words following: 'except occasionally or temporarily in the prosecution of your occupation as, mentioning, as the case may be, a lumberman or mariner or fisherman or in attendance es a student in an institution of learning in the Dominion of Canada (naming the institution), and that you are now actually a

resident of and domiciled in the said (city or town).'


William Barton Northrup: May I ask the lion. Solicitor General if he will be willing to consider any amendment that may properly be drawn up to bring in the new clauses that the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) was suggesting in the Bill which lie proposes. I quite agree with the hon. Solicitor General, that in the particular form in which these clauses were introduced in the Bill to amend the Act respecting the North-west Territories, they could not be properly taken up in the consideration of the Election Act. But, I think the idea that my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche) had in his mind, could be framed in such a way that it would properly be an amendment to the Election Act. May I ask the Solicitor General to consider that before the Bill comes up again ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: My hon. friend will realize that the suggestion that I should pledge the government to amend the North-west Territories Representation Act would be entirely futile. All I can do is to submit these amendments to the government and then if it is decided they should be adopted, well and good.


William Barton Northrup: I did not ask the learned Solicitor General to pledge himself. I asked that he should consider them in the meantime. Before this Bill comes up again, would the hon. gentleman also consider the point raised in Bill No. 96.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Would my hon. friend state his reasons in favour of that ?


William Barton Northrup: Simply because it occurred to me that it was an oversight in the original drafting of the statute that this particular point was not covered. Section 108, clause (i), makes it illegal to oiler an 'office' to any person to induce him to withdraw as a candidate. My Bill provides that it will be illegal to offer him money as well as to offer him an office. Why should it not be unlawful for to attempt to dissuade a man from being a candidate by the offer of money, as well as to attempt to dissuade him by the offer of an office.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: When this Bill was discussed originally, it occurred to me that it might be perfectly laudable for a man to offer money to a candidate for the purpose of inducing him under certain, circumstances to withdraw. Take the case of a father whose son intends to run for parliament, and the father! thinks it would be desirable in tbe interest of the son that he should desist, and he might offer the son money to do so. It would be perfectly lawful and proper that the father should do that in the interest of the son, but the father would come within the operation of my hon. friend's amendment.


William Barton Northrup: Then the learned Solicitor General had better amend his Bill by striking out clause (d), because, if the father in order to dissuade his son from entering into the giddy vortex of politics offers him an office, the father would be punished under clause (i). Although he did a laudable thing in offering the office he would be punished, whereas if he does an equally laudable thing by offering money he would not be punished. The learned Solicitor General had better strike out section (i) or adopt my amendment.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: There is something in that.


Byron Moffatt Britton: Will these amendments be printed before we consider the Bill again.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: A sample ballot paper should also be printed and submitted to the members of the House.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
On the order :
House again in Committee of Supply.
['Yes, I think I would.\nResolution reported.\nOn motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.']
Robert Laird Borden: It is rather a late hour to go on with the estimates. The gentlemen wild are more familiar with the railway estimates are not here.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) is not ready to go on to-night ?


Robert Laird Borden: The gentlemen on our side of the House who are more particularly familiar with the railway estimates are not ready this evening. If we go into Supply, I would rather we should take up some ouier estimates.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Of course under the circumstances I will not press my hon. friend, but I think he will not find fault if we continue very late to-morrow evening.


Robert Laird Borden: If the Minister of Railways has any particular matter he wishes to make an explanation on, there is no objection to proceed to that extent.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have nothing in particular to speak about; I have dealt with the matter at the last two sittings of the House. I am ready to go on with the estimates now.



[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to provide that the salary of the senior judge of the Circuit Court of the district of Montreal shall he $3,600 per annum.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: There are three judges who have exclusive jurisdiction in circuit court matters in the city' of Montreal and they have $3,000 a year each. It is the intention to give the senior judge an increase of $600. Hon. gentlemen will agree that this is not a very high salary for the senior judge of a court in which they try 17,000 cases a year.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the jurisdiction ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It is limited to $100.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Does it correspond to the county court judges in Ontario ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: To some extent. These judges have no surrogate fees, as have the county court judges in Ontario.


Robert Laird Borden: The salaries are higher than in Ontario.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Judge Mae-dougall, of Toronto, who occupies a similar position, gets $2,600 a year salary, and all his surrogate fees.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: $2,400 I think.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: There is a special exception for the county court judge of York. He getsi more than any of the others.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Solicitor General spoke of the jurisdiction of these judges being limited to $100. Is it confined to contracts, or does it include any cause of action ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Any cause of action.


Robert Laird Borden: It is a very much smaller jurisdiction than that of a great many of the county court judges. At the same time, the amount of business transacted by these judges is, I suppose, very large 1


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It is enormous. Last year or the year before the number of cases tried by them was 17,600. Of course, I admit that a large number of these cases do not give very much trouble.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my bon. friend mean to say that the three judges tried that many cases ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: No, but that many writs were issued and judgments rendered.


William Findlay Maclean: I see that this resolution provides for an increase in the salary of one of the judges of the province of Quebec, and the following one makes provision for increases in the salaries of the judges in the provincial courts of the North-west Territories and In some of the other provinces. I would like to ask the Solicitor General if Mr. BLAIR.
lie can tell us now whether it is the intention of the government to increase the salaries of the Superior Court judges of the province of Ontario ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The next resolution to which my hon. friend refers, provides for the appointment of three additional judges of the Superior Court for the district of Montreal, without any increase of salary whatever. It provides also that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the North-west Territories shall receive $5,000 a year instead of $4,000, the amount now paid to him. With respect to the three additional judges for the district of Montreal, I have to say that the amount of business done there is largely in excess of the capacity of the judges who now live there.


William Findlay Maclean: I am not questioning the wisdom of doing this, but I wish to know whether, when this increase is made, the judges of Ontario are to be considered ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is no increase in salaries proposed in this resolution.


Mr. FOWLER.: How many judges are in this court ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Three altogether.


George William Fowler: What salaries do the others get ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: 

Resolution reported.


SALARIES OF JUDGES.
[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to amend the Act respecting the judges of provincial courts and to provide as follows :-
1.	That the salary of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the North-west Territories shall be $5,000, and of the four puisne judges of the said court each $4,000 per annum.
2.	That the salary of an additional judge of the Territorial Court of the Yukon territory shall be $5,000 per annum.
3.	That the salaries of the seventeen puisne judges of the Superior Court of Quebec, whose residences are fixed at Montreal or Quebec (including the judge to whom the district of Terrebonne is assigned), shall be each $5,000 per annum.-Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The first part of the resolution provides for an increase of $1,000 in the salary of the Chief Justice of the North-west Territories. There .are at present five puisng judges, receiving $4,000 each. The intention is to appoint one of them Chief Justice and increase his salary to $5,000.


William Findlay Maclean: Can we not press on the government at this time to give an answer to the question as to the salaries of the judges of this country generally ? I am ready to place myself on record as being in favour of a substantial increase in the sal-

aries of the judges of the Superior Court, not only of Ontario, but of every other province where it can be justified. From what X have read in the press and from conversations I have had with different parties, I have been led to understand that some such legislation was to be introduced this session. At all events, now that the session is coming to an end, I would be glad to have the government give us a statement whether or not they intend taking up that legislation this session. It has been canvassed more or less in different portions of the country, and an answer from the government would settle it in one way or the other. It is no good leaving it open. Speaking for myself, I am altogether in favour of increasing the salaries of our judges. You will get a higher class of men to take the positions if you pay them better. There is nothing in English jurisprudence which is so much in favour of England as the way she pays her judges. The large salaries she has paid them stand not only to the credit lof the country, but have secured a high class of judges. There is also a strong movement in the United tSates in favour of paying higher salaries to the judges of the United States courts, and it is supported almost from one end of the country to the other. If we are having a growing time, and if the cost of living has increased, as it has, then the argument applies not only to judges, but to others in the service, and it may have to be carried out on a rather large scale. I know it is a difficult question, and it will tax the energy of the Finance Minister to carry it out ; but I think we should have some statement from the government on this important matter now, when this resolution is going through.


Edward Gawler Prior: I am heartily in accord with the remarks that have fallen from the lips of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. If we are to get the best men to take the positions of judges, and we should do so, we should pay them salaries which will induce them to leave their ^ practice to take seats on the bench. It will be satisfactory to the country to know that the judges whom they look to as men they can implicitly trust, are getting salaries on which they can decently live. I have a resolution, passed unanimously in the legislative assembly of British Columbia on the 27th of August, 1900, which I have been requested to lay before the House. It is as follows :
Whereas, in the opinion of this House it is apparent :-
That the work of the courts of British Columbia is rapidly increasing, latterly to such an extent that it became necessary to create three new registries of the Supreme Court during the year 1899, and five new registries during the present year ;
And that the five judges of the Supreme Court of British Columbia are constantly called upon, in the discharge of their duties, to adjudicate upon matters of magnitude, especially where mining interests are concerned ;
128}
And that the questions coming before the said judges for adjudication are, as regards the weight of litigation in the other provinces, out of all proportion to the population in this province ;
And that, in addition to the duties above referred to, the said judges were last year constituted a court of appeal from the Territorial Court of the Yukon, without any provision having been made for remuneration for such extra duties ;
And that the judges of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec who occupy positions corresponding to those of the judges of our Supreme Court are paid by the Dominion government $1,000 per annum more than the judges of this province, although the cost of living here is much greater than the cost of living there, with the result that salaries of the judges here are, in effect, further reduced by at least 25 per cent ;
And that the principle of an increase of salary as a fair compensation for an increase in the cost of living has been recently recognized by the Dominion government in the case of the judges of the Yukon Territory by making them an extra allowance of $1,500 per annum in consequence of the great cost of living there ;
And whereas, this House is of opinion that it is unfair that our judges should, in respect of compensation, be placed on a worse footing than the judges of Ontario and Quebec occupying corresponding positions as above mentioned ;
Therefore, be it resolved that an humble address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada, praying that the judges of the Supreme Court of British Columbia be placed on the same footing, as regards salary, as the judges holding corresponding positions in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
Unanimously passed on August 27, 1900.
I would ask the right hon. the leader of the government or the hon. the Solicitor General what reason can be given why the Supreme Court judges of British Columbia should not be just as well paid as those of Quebec and Ontario. If the reason given is because the cost of living is greater in these provinces, that is no argument at all, because the contrary is the case. I do not say that the expense of living is greater than in Montreal or Toronto, where house rents are dear, but taking it all round, it is higher in British Columbia than in either of these provinces. Again, surely the gentlemen on the bench in British Columbia are equally as intelligent individually, equally as capable of carrying out their duties, as the judges of any other province. I think it is well worthy the consideration of the government that not only the judges of British Columbia should receive higher salaries, but that all the judges in Canada should have larger stipends, but in any case I feel strongly that the judges of British Columbia should be as well paid as those in the other provinces.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This subject of the salaries of judges is not new to this House by any means. It has had the attention of several successive governments and parliaments. Sir John Thompson, in my recollection, introduced a measure, at least v twice, to provide for the Increase of the

salaries of judges, but after having introduced the resolution, he did not proceed with it for reasons which he did not indicate to the House, but I presume because of the opposition within the ranks of his own party. As far as I am concerned, at the time, when I was sitting on the opposite side of the House, I was prepared to support such a measure. But the whole subject is not without difficulties. There is a general opinion throughout the land that the present salaries, which were established some forty years ago, are inadequate to the present conditions. But while this opinion prevails, it is not at all a unanimous one, and whenever the subject was taken up in previous years there have been contradictory opinions expressed. The hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) thinks, perhaps with some propriety, that we should take example after England, who has not only been generous, but more than generous, in her treatment of judges. There is no country under the sun which deals with its judges as England does. The policy is on the whole a wise one, but I doubt if you would find in Canada public opinion ready to support an increase in the salaries on the scale paid in England. If we are to increase the salaries at all, it can be only on a moderate scale, for I do not think public opinion would justify anything else. The difficulty is not so much to provide for an increase as to scale such an increase. It is supposed that judges have more to do in the larger provinces than in the other provinces. Some judges in Montreal have much more to do than those in some of the other provinces. As to British Columbia I do not know how far the judges are busy, but I would presume that in such a growing province, judicial business must increase as well as every other kind, and that the judges there have a great deal more to do than in some of the other provinces which have a larger population. It is generally admitted that in British Columbia the cost of living is perhaps higher than in any other part of the Dominion. All these things are to be taken into consideration. In the maritime provinces the judges are not paid on an even scale. In Prince Edward Island they have less pay than in any other province, and it is supposed that in'that island there is less judicial litigation and business than in other parts of the Dominion. The difficulty which Sir John Thompson found, and which still exists and confronts the present Minister of Justice, is how to provide an adequate scale of increase, if there is to be an increase at all. I do not think that if the government were to introduce a measure for an indiscriminate increase of the salaries, such a measure would be acceptable. I believe that if there is to be such an increase at all, it must be graduated in some way or other and not made uniform. I do


Wilfrid Laurier: not know that the House would support us in a measure to increase the salaries all round all through the different provinces, $1,000, $1,500 or $2,000. Parliament would expect that there should be some degree of graduation, and there is really where the difficulty lies. I do* not know that parliament would deal illiberally. On the contrary, if I can judge by the observations to-night, parliament would be rather disposed to favour an increase of the present salaries, but the difficulty is how to graduate it. This is a matter which has been and is still engaging the attention of the Minister of Justice, but at present I am sorry to say I am not in a position to give any definite answer to my hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty is very much in the line the right hon. gentleman has pointed out. Some instances have been brought to my own attention iu the province of Ontario, of county court judges there who receive very inadequate salaries, considering the responsibility they have and the amount of work they perform. On the other hand, I am free to confess that I do know one or two instances at least in Canada where probably the judge gets all that is necessary, and where he enjoys a position very desirable, having regard to the amount of work he does and the amount of ability required to perform it. Therefore, as the right hon. gentleman has pointed out, if I understand him correctly, it is the very great difficulty of dealing with this matter in detail, that confronts any government that undertakes to deal with it. I might point out in this connection that the salaries of the Supreme Court judges in my own province seem to me very inadequate-and that applies also to New Brunswick where, I think, the salaries are the same. A Supreme Court judge in Nova Scotia receives just $400 more than the amount voted to-night for the senior Circuit Court judge in the city of Montreal, whose jurisdiction extends only up to the sum of $100, both in contract and in tort. The latter receives $3,600, and a judge of the Supreme Court of the province of Nova Scotia receives $4,000. It is true that his salary is augmented to some extent by some allowances for travelling which are, perhaps, in excess of what is actually paid.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: He will not get rich on that.


Robert Laird Borden: As my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) says, he will not get rich on that. I think the salary is very inadequate, considering the ability called for by a position of that kind, the style in which one in such a position is expected to live, and the responsibility which such a position entails. I should be very glad to give most favourable consideration to any measure of this kind which the government may see fit to bring down, reserving, of course,

my right to criticise matters of detail, as I may think they should he criticised.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I wish to say a word on behalf of the bench of Manitoba. The argument that my hon. friend from British Columbia (Hon. Mr? Prior) brought forward with regard to the cost of living in British Columbia applies with equal, if not greater, force to the province of Manitoba. Living has always been high there, insomuch that an extra allowance is made to civil servants for the cost of living. While our bench is not large, it is composed of very able men. I believe the feeling in the province is that the bench should be adequately remunerated. There are thousands of men engaged in mercantile pursuits and professional life who make two or three times what the judges make, and I do not think I do them injustice in saying that many of them do not possess a tithe of the ability that the judges do. In my opinion, an increase of the salaries of the judges would be justified and appreciated in the province of Manitoba.


William Findlay Maclean: I hope that the government is seriously trying to solve this problem. Even though Sir John Thompson found he could not do it, that is no reason why parliament should not approach the question and try to solve it by paying higher salaries to those who are entitled to them. I believe that a way can be found to do this with the approval of the country. But, the government should go so far as to say that they recognize that the judges should be paid more than they are paid to-day, and that at an early day they intend to bring forward a measure in that direction. I believe the country is prepared to vote the money, and I venture to say that if we do not pay our judges better than we do, we shall get an inferior class of men on the bench. If there is anything this country can rely upon it is the courts. Some of our political institutions are not improved, I am sorry to say. I would not like to see the dignity of the courts lowered or a less able class of men presiding in them. But, the only way to get good men is to pay decent salaries.


William Humphrey Bennett: So far as Ontario is concerned, the trouble, I believe, is in the number of county court judges. There is a strong feeling in the province of Ontario- and I am speaking as a lawyer knowing the prejudice against a lawyer speaking strongly in such a matter-against the number of county court judges. I have here the returns for the province of Ontario for last year. In the country of Oxford a junior county judge was appointed the other day. There were five cases tried with a jury, and three without a jury last year. In the united counties of Dundas and Glengarry, there were eleven actions tried in the year. There has recently been a junior county court judge appointed there also. In the county of Welland, there were only two
actions tried in the whole year. I am not sure whether there is a junior judge there or not. In the county of Lincoln there were three actions tried in the year. In the county of Victoria, five actions were tried in the year. There was a junior judge appointed there a year or so ago.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Does that return give the statistics for the division courts ?


William Humphrey Bennett: No. This does not include the division court. It is a notorious fact that in Ontario there are county court judges that have practically nothing to do yet they are paid these large salaries, running as high as $2,600 for the county court judge, and $2,000 to $2,4u0 for the junior judge. On the other hand, while there are Superior Court judges-and I am going to speak plainly-who, I believe, never had a professional income as high as that they now enjoy, there are others on the Superior Court bench who, if in active practice, instead of making $6,000 a year, would be making $20,000 a year. There is the difficulty of the position-how to reconcile all these things. I believe the Superior Court judges are entitled to higher salaries. But, if this increase is to be given, there should be an accompanying policy of retrenchment-and this must begin, I believe, with the county court judges.


James Clancy: How could they live on smaller salaries ?


William Humphrey Bennett: What I propose is to reduce the number. If the matter is figured out, it will be found that some of these county court judges receive as high as $4,000 a year. The salary is from $2,000 to $2,600, and there are in addition fees in the Surrogate Court which, in the large counties, run up to large amounts. I am sure I am within the mark when I say that in the province of Ontario you will find county court judges who are earning easily as high as $3,500 a year. Now I believe sincerely that there should be higher money paid to the Superior Court judges. It will be hard to put them all into a class because they are not in a class. It cannot be expected that every man will be in the same order ; but any one who is conversant with the judges in the province of Ontario know that there are men to-day on the bench who, were they practising, would be leaders of the bar, and would easily earn an income of $20,000. At the same time, there are others who probably would not earn $5,000 in their profession. The whole trouble I believe lies In this prejudice that has been worked up in the public against these county court judges who, from one end of the province to the other, are to be found practically doing nothing most of the year round. I don't blame the present government for having made these appointments of junior judges, the last government was equally

culpable, and until we bave a reform in the matter of the appointment of judges I think we must start out and cut down the' number of county court judges, then we will have more money to pay for the Superior Court judges.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My bon. friend forgets a very important factor in this question. He blames us for having appointed too many county court judges. But he is aware that we have no discretion in this matter. The organization of the courts is in the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature, and when a provincial legislature organizes a court and says it shall be composed of so many judges, I do not see, unless we engage in a very difficult controversy with the legislature, how we are to avoid giving effect to their legislation by appointing the judges. The constitution) in this matter is very complicated, as we know. The constitution of the courts is in the power of the provincial legislature, while the selection of the judges is in the bands of the Federal government, and their payment in the hands of the Federal parliament. So when we appoint these judges we are simply performing what I would call, not a ministerial, but a constitutional duty. If the number of those county court judges in the province of Ontario is to be reduced, the work of reform has to be done by the local legislature and not by us.


James Clancy: That was done for a short period, and then you) went back to the old system. I believe there was some substantial reason for that.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I hope they were very good reasons.


James Clancy: Hon. gentlemen opposite came into power here.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Well, that was a very good reason in itself. But my hon. friend must remember we have had the same difficulty in Quebec. In Quebec perhaps we have too many judges. That is the opiniou we have heard expressed on the floor of this House, and it has been expressed in the local legislature, but we have not been able to convince the local legislature that there have been too many judges. The system is growing. I think it a very good system in many ways, and it would be difficult, whei'e people have been accustomed to have one judge or two judges iu their midst, to remove them. It may be the same in Ontario. Perhaps there is not much judicial business at this time in certain localities, but there may be other localities where the county court judges have as much as they can do, and where to draw the line is a very difficult matter ; I do not think it is possible to draw the line anywhere. There must be some inconveniences and, perhaps, some mistakes, but, on the whole, as long as the local legislature has j Mr. BENNETT.
control of the establishment of the court I do not see how we can do anything but comply with their legislation, unless we are prepared to believe that they acted in bad faith. But so long as we have not that conviction, we have no discretion but to appoint the judges and to pay them.


William Findlay Maclean: It follows then that we must have some kind of constitutional reform in this matter.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend is a reformer, although he pretends to be a Tory.


William Findlay Maclean: The time may have arrived when we must agitate to have a constitutional reform. I agree with my hon. friend behind me (Mr. Bennett), who says that we have too many county court judges in the province of Ontario, and that we do not pay our Superior Court judges enough. The way is to bring about some kind of court reform in the province of Ontario. That is being discussed there every day, but somehow people do not seem to reach a conclusion themselves, and it Is put over from session to session and nothing is done. But something must be done and at an early day, and some of these unnecessary judges in the province of Ontario must be got rid of. and the money that now goes to them ought to go to the Superior Court judges who are really doing the work. As a parliament we must find a way out of that.
Mi'. BENNETT. In the case of, superannuated judges, do they have to pay anything towards a retiring allowance ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: No.


Mr. SUTHERLAND (Essex).: It is hardly fair, it seems to me, in discussing the work that is being done by the county court judges, simply to point out that it is only a few cases which they actually try in the county court, because that is but a trifling part of the work they do. The jurisdiction which they have in the division court enables them to try an immense number of cases in that court. In addition to that in their capacity of local judges of the High Court, they bave a large number of motions in the High Court to dispose of in chambers. In addition to that they have interim criminal sessions work, they have appeals from Courts of Revision, they have drainage assessment appeals and all that class of work ; and I am bound to say, speaking of the county in which I live, that the judges of the county court have a great deal of work to do. Over and above that we know that just at the present time there is an agitation going on in the province of Ontario to give increased jurisdiction to the county court, which will bring under their work a class of cases which do not now belong to it. and which at present are being tried by judges of the High Court on circuit. So I

think that not only can no charge be made against them that they are not doing sufficient work, but I believe they are not getting, in many cases, sufficient pay for the work they are doing ; and this is particularly applicable to the junior judges of the county court who are doing in many counties a large part of the work, and are not getting, in my judgment, adequate pay.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I think the discussion has gone on so far it ought to go a little further. I quite agree that the time has come for a rearrangement of the salaries of the judges in the different provinces, especially in the province of Ontario. Yet there is a considerable lack of information as to what the judges really get in that province, and that remark will apply both to the Superior Court and county court judges. Not only do all Superior Court judges get the salaries that we find in the estimates of $5,000 and $6,000, but they are allowed $1,000 each from the province of Ontario. That is paid in this way : The judges do a good deal of work for the province of Ontario proper, for instance, in election trials, and there used to be a commission which was the foundation of the grant on the part of the province. However, that is done away with now, at least, there is no work under it now, but still the allowance goes on. Then eleven of the judges in the province of Ontario go on circuit, and these are the judges of the King's Bench Division, the Common Pleas Division, and the Chancery Division. In all there are ten judges who go on circuit, and they hold fifteen to eighteen courts each year on circuit, and are allowed $100 each for that. Of coure, their expenses are not nearly as much as the $100 allowance that is made. While I say that I still agree with what has been said by so many hon. members, that it is time for a rearrangement of salaries, and yet hon. gentlemen will see the difficulties that attend the matter when it comes up for adjustment, because it is only those judges that go on circuit who get this allowance-which is very considerable in the aggregate. Judges of the Court of Appeal, who do not go on circuit, are debarred from this extra allowance. Then, you have the county court judges, and some of the county court judges get as much as $3,500 and some of them more than that. That arises from the fact that the senior county court judge is also the surrogate judge of his county. The fees of the surrogate judges are according to the wealth of the county for which he is judge. In many of the counties these fees are commuted, and they are commuted for a very liberal allowance. The commutation in the county from which I come is $900 odd. The wealth of the county has increased to such an extent that if he got fees instead of a commutation allowance he would get probably as much and perhaps more. Then, county court judges get fees
for selecting jurors, for acting under the Ditches and Watercourses Act, for the revision of the voters' lists and in other ways in connection with their duties. They get allowances which, in the aggregate amount to a very fair sum. In some counties these fees are large and the aggregate is considerable. So, it requires readjustment. It will not do to say that the time has come when a certain bulk sum, irrespective of the work done by the particular judge, should be added to the judge's salary. I only mention these matters for the information of the committee. Hon. gentlemen will see from what I have mentioned that it is not simply on the salaries that we see in the estimates that many of the judges entirely depend.


William Findlay Maclean: Would the hon. gentleman increase the salaries of the Superior Court judges of Ontario ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: Yes, I think I would.
Resolution reported.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.


HOUSE 0E COMMONS.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 30, 1901.