1902-03-03

MEMBER INTRODUCED.

Hon.   H@: Carroll, member for the electoral district of Kamouraska, Introduced by the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Justice (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).



CONTROVERTED ELECTION.

Mr. SPEAKER.: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received from the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada, a certified copy of the judgment of the said court in the election appeal for the electoral district of Beauharnois ; by which the appeal was dismissed and the decision of the lower court, declaring the election void, was confirmed.
In conformity with chapter 9, section 46, of the Revised Statutes, I have issued my warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



COMMON'S FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 20) to incorporate the Battleford and Bake Lenore Railway Company .-Mr. Calvert.	*
Bill (No. 21) respecting the Port Dover, Brantford, Berlin and Goderich Railway Company, to change its name to ' The Grand Valley Traction Company.'-Mr. Heyd.

Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER (Pic-tou).: I would like to ask the right hon. the first minister whether the rumours in the press are correct with regard to an appointment having been made to the judiciary of British Columbia. The judicial work in the courts there has been at a standstill awaiting this appointment, and I hold a telegram in my hand stating that the press despatches announce the appointment of Mr. Hunter to the Chief Justiceship. The bar are very anxious to know whether this is accurate.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The appointment has been made.



SECOND READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 9) respecting the United Gold Fields of British Columbia, Limited.-Mr. Galliher.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER called :	' Questions to be
put by members.'
Hon. JOHN COSTIGAN (Victoria, N.B.) There is great inconvenience in passing over all these private bills simply because the letter ' E ' does not appear after their notice in the order paper. Of course I know that objection can be taken to our proceeding with the next item, because it is not represented in the order paper as having been printed, but I hold the printed Bill in my hand. There are no doubt good reasons for pursuing this course, but it will be found very inconvenient this session, because we expect it to be short and because there is a large amount of private legislation before parliament which should be facilitated.
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: We are guided to a large extent by the Orders of the Day. I see, by the Orders of the Day, that these Bills have not been printed; and I am informed also that, in many instances the reason why Bills have not been printed is that the promoters have not brought them in at the time prescribed by the rules of the House. I do not think that blame should attach to officers of the House.


Hon. Mr. COSTIGAN.: Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed to speak again-I did not


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: intend to impute blame to any person. I think the rule is that the Order paper for Monday is printed on Saturday morning. That is necessary, I presume, for the convenience of Council, for that is a busy day for Council, and they have to consider matters coming up on Monday. But if this Order paper had been printed this morning, this Bill would have been marked as printed. I have no objection to the rule, but I would call the attention of the government to the fact that it is going to be inconvenient in regard to private legislation.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. .Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: In the case to which my hon. friend refers, which, I understand, is the second order, the Bill respecting the Edmonton and Slave Lake Railway Company, I understand, from the statement that has just been made by my hon. friend (Mr. Costigan), that this Bill has actually been printed. It was not printed when the Order paper was printed, but it is now, I understand, in the hands of members. Under such circumstances, I think the House might well take up the Bill. If it is the intention of my hon. friend to have the Bill read the second time, before it is printed I think the House should not agree to that proposition. But, when the Bill is printed, as a matter of fact, I think the order might be proceeded with.



EDMONTON AND SLAVE LAKE RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. COSTIGAN moved the second reading of Bill (No. 12) respecting the Edmonton and Slave Lake Railway Company.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.


Mr. CLARKE asked :: What sums have been paid out to date in connection with the taking of the recent census of the Dominion ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Mon. Sydney Fisher).: The total amount to date is $948,410.55.


GOVERNMENT ELEVATORS, ST. JOHN AND HALIFAX.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GANONG-by Mr. Blain-asked :
1.	What quantity of grain or other produce has been handled by the government elevators at the cities of St. John and Halifax, respectively, between January 1st, 1901, and January 1st, 1902 ?
2.	What revenues, if any, have been received from these elevators, and what has been the total cost of running and caring for these elevators, respectively ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: 1.	There has been handled by the government elevator at St. John in the year ended 31st December, 1901, 146,087 bushels of wheat. No grain or other produce was handled by the government elevator at Halifax between 1st January, 1901, and 1st January, 1902.
2.	There are no direct revenues from the elevators; the elevator charges are included in the through rates for carrying the grain. The cost of running and caring for the St. John elevator was $4,989.93, and the Halifax elevator $2,016.50, up to January 31st, 1902.


DISMISSAL OF POSTMASTER DAVID CLINTON, WELLINGTON, ONTARIO.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ALCORN-by Mr. Lennox-asked :
For what reason was David Clinton dismissed from the office of postmaster at Wellington, Ontario ?
If for alleged offensive partisanship, of what overt act or acts was such partisanship alleged to consist ?
Were any, and what, specific charges preferred against him, and by whom ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. William Mulock).: It was shown that the postmaster at Wellington was in the habit at parliamentary elections of allowing the post office to be used practically as a committee room by his political friends, and also of permitting political posters of a partisan character to be hung up on the walls of the post office during elections, to the great annoyance of those patrons of the office not in political sympathy with him, and that he proved himself an energetic and offensive political partisan; and that his health was so poor as to not allow him to give proper personal attention to the affairs of the office. Under these circumstances he was relieved of the office. The information reached the Postmaster General from a source that is considered, beyond any question, reliable.


THE CANNERS AND THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES.
Mr. BELAND asked :: Has the attention of the government been called to an article which appeared in the Victoria ' Colonist ' on the 9th February, 1902, part of which reads as follows :-
' In speaking of the grievances of the canners, Professor Prince, commissioner of fisheries, said there were no doubt many grievances, many matters to set right, and if they had been set right long ago, it would have been better for the government; but the government have not had a minister who could form a resolution and act on it since the days of Sir Hibbert Tupper.'
2.	Is it the intention of the government to have an investigation as to whether Professor Prince expressed himself as above reported ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: In answering this question, I think I cannot do better than read a letter received from Professor Prince. It is as follows ;
20*
Department of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa, 3rd March, 1902
Dear Mr. Sutherland,-Respecting the question of Mr. Beland, M.P., as to a statement which it has been alleged I made in an interview on the 8th February last, I beg to say that the statement is absolutely untrue and without foundation. I made no such statement to any representative of the press or to any other person.
Yours faithfully,
EDWARD E. PRINCE, Dominion Commissioner of Fisheries. The Hon.
James Sutherland, M.P.,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
I may also add that Professor Prince informs me that no such interview took place, and that the paragraph quoted in the question is part of a long series of statements published in the newspaper referred to, which Professor Prince shows not only misrepresent his views on British Columbia questions, but are exactly opposite in every particular to the opinions held by him.


THE SALARY OF THE GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria)-by Mr. Clarke-asked :
Has the government under consideration, or has it decided on, an increase in the salary and allowances of the General Officer Commanding in Canada, so as to make the income nearly equivalent to that of a major-general on service in the Imperial service ?
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: The government has not had under consideration any proposal to increase the salary and allowances of the general officer commanding.


DUTY ON BLEACHED AND UNBLEACHED COTTON.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MADORE-by Mr. Lavergne-asked :
What is the present rate of duty on bleached and unbleached cottons ; and what was the rate on the same under the Mackenzie tariff ?
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: The present customs duty on cotton fabrics, white or gray, bleached or unbleached, is 25 per cent ad valorem, subject to a rebate of one-third the duty, making the net rate 16f per cent, when made in and imported direct from a country admitted to the benefits of the British Preferential Tariff of Canada. The customs duty on the same fabrics under the Customs Tariff of 1877, was 17* per cent ad valorem.


GOVERNMENT RAILWAY SHOPS, MONCTON AND CHARLOTTETOWN.
Mr. PUTTEE asked :: 1.	How many men are employed in the government railway shops at Moncton, New

Brunswick, and Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island ?
2.	How many hours constitute a day's work in these shops ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 1,	There are 755 men employed in the government railway shops at Moncton, New Brunswick, and 79 men in the government railway shops at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
2.	Ten hours constitute a day's work in these shops.


PRINCE OF WALES VISIT-ILLUMINATION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	To whom was given the contract for the illumination of public buildings in Ottawa during the visit of the Prince of Wales last year ?
2.	What was the amount paid for such illumination ?
3.	How much was charged per lamp ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: In the absence of the hon. Minister of Public Works, I am requested to give the following answers to the hon. gentleman's questions :
1.	Ahearn & Soper.
2.	Amount paid $5,000, but cost was : Parliament Building, at $5,000; Bast and West Blocks, at $4,000 each;; equals $13,000 as per plan by tender. Langevin Block, bridges, Wellington Street, post office and festoons, $4,150 as per tender for buildings, &c. ; total, $17,150.
3.	The contracts were given for designs, lamps to be placed at given distances or groupp. pro account iwas kept of the number used.


PAYMENTS TO NEWSPAPERS.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Whr.t is the total amount paid by the government to the Montreal 'Herald' since the 30th June last ?
2.	What is the total amount paid by the government to the Toronto 'Globe' since the 30th June last ?
3.	What is the total amount paid by the government to the Halifax ' Chronicle ' since the 30th June last ?
4.	What is the total amount paid by the government to 'Le Soleil,' of Quebec, and 'La Patrie,' of Montreal, since the 30th June last ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: This information cannot, at present, be obtained. I think it would! be more convenient if the hon. gentleman would move for a return, as the information he desires relates to various departments, and not to any one particular department.


CIRCULATION OF DOMINION NOTES.
Mr. SPROULE asked :: 1.	How many one dollar bank notes were issued in each year from 1892 to 1901, both dates inclusive ?


Mr. PUTTEE.: 2.	How many two dollar bank notes were issued in each year from 1892 to 1901, both dates
inclusive ?
3.	How many four dollar bank notes were issued in each year from 1892 to 1901, both dates inclusive ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The hon. gentleman's question is intended to refer, I presume, to Dominion notes, not to bank notes, notes of the denominations mentioned are not issued by the banks. The following is a statement of the Dominion of Canada $1, $2 and $4 notes issued by the Comptroller of Dominion Currency at Ottawa to the several assistant Receivers General in Canada for
each	year from 1892 to	1901, inclusive.	1891..	816,000	304,0001892..	832,000	320,0001893..	
1,680,000	872,000	304,0001894..	
1,636,000	896,000	288,0001895..	
1,788,000	1,024,000	208,0001896..	
1,784,000	1,008,000	176,0001897..	
1,816,000	1,000,000	208,0001898..	
2,344,000	1,280,000	352,0001899..	1,480,000	264,0001900..	
2,272,000	1,544,000	40,0001901..	
2,760,000	1,616,000	816,000$21,664,000	$12,368,000	$3,280,000


LIEUT.-COL. VANWAGNER'S REMOVAL.
Mr. SMITH (Wentworth) asked :: 1.	Has the matter referred to in the following letter, addressed by C. D. Pinault, Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence, to Lieut.-Col. Van-Wagner, on November 25th, 1899, been investigated :-
' Sir,-In reply to your letter of the 8th inst., addressed to the Right Honourable the Earl of Minto, and transferred to this department, I have the honour to inform you that the matter concerning your removal will be investigated.'
2.	If so, by whom ?
3.	What is the finding ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: After the date of the letter of the deputy minister quoted in the question, I looked into the matter, and came to the conclusion that there was nothing requiring investigation.


STEAMSHIPS WITH COOLING PLANTS OR FANS.
Mr. SMITH (Wentworth) asked :: 1.	What steamers have been fitted up with cooling plants to cool the compartments containing perishable products in conformity With agreement with the government of Canada ?
2.	What other steamships than those named in the House by the Minister of Agriculture last year have been fitted with fans to produce a circulation of fre3h air in the compartments in which perishable products are carried, if any ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: Part of the information called for in this question is now in the hands of the department, but another part has yet to be obtained. I will allow the question to stand until I can get the whole.


MAKCH 3, 1902 BUSINESS OF 'SAMPLE POST.'
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BROCK-by Mr. Clarke-asked :
1.	What quantity of samples by 'sample post' is brought into Canada ?
2.	Does the postage thereon pay the cost of [DOT]carriage and handling ?
3.	If not, what amount is lost to the country ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock) :: 1.	No record is kept by this department of the quantity of samples brought into Canada from foreign countries.
2.	The postage on such matter is paid in and retained by the country of origin, and in accordance with the provisions of the Universal Postal Convention there is no charge by Canada except in the case of deficient postage.
3.	It is impossible to form an estimate of the cost of transmission of such matter.


THE GERMAN TARIFF.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. KEMP-by Mr. Clarke-asked :
1.	To what nations or dependencies does Germany apply her minimum and maximum tariff respectively ?
2.	What is the date of the last Anglo-German Treaty ?
The MINISTER OP TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) :: 1.	The latest list of countries enjoying ' Most Favoured Nation Treatment ' is that published in July, 1898, and is in virtue of a decision of the Bundesrath, dated 2Gth May, 1898, and is as per attach.
All other nations are supposed to be subject to the maximum tariff.
It does not follow in all cases that because certain countries are on the list as enjoying ' Most Favoured Nation Treatment ' that they have the full benefit of the minimum tariff, as in some instances they are under special treaty covering only certain specified articles.	,
2.	The date of the last Anglo-German treaty was Slay 30th, 1865, with some subsequent supplements, which treaty has been denounced, so that there exists at present no regular commercial treaty between the two countries, but pending negotiations Great Britain and her colonies, with the exception of Canada and Barbadoes, are given the benefit of the ' Most Favoured Nation Treatment.'
Bulletin International des Douanes.
The International Customs Journal.
Germany.
16th Supplement to No. 25.
(July 1898.)
In virtue of a decision of the Bundesrath, dated May 26, 1898 (1), the list of countries enjoying the most-favoured nation treatment^) is modified as follows :
Argentine Republic, Belgium, Chile, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, France including Colonies, transmarine Possessions and the Principality of Monaco, Greece, Great Britain including Colonies and transmarine Possessions (3), Guatemala,
Hawaiian Islands, Honduras, Italy including the Republic of Saint Marin, Colombia, Republic of Liberia, Madagascar, Morocco, Mexico, Nicaragua, Netherlands including Colonies and transmarine Possessions, Austria-Hungary including the territories of Bosnia and Herzegovina belonging to the customs circumscription as well as the Principality of Lichtenstein, Orange Free State, Paraguay, Persia, Roumania, Russia, Salvador, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, South African Republic (Transvaal), Turkey (with Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia), Tunis, United States of America, Zanzibar, German territories excluded from the customs circumscription, German Colonies and Protectorates.
(1)	'Centralblatt f. d. Deutsche Reich ' No. 22, of 1898.
(2)	See No. 25, page 3.
(3)	According to the law of .May 11, 1898 ('Reichsgesetzblatt,' No. 19, of 1898), the Bundesrath is authorized to grant the most-favoured nation treatment to Great Britain, her Colonies and transmarine possessions until June 30, 1899.


ADVERTISEMENTS OF BINDER TWINE.
Mr. BLAIN asked :: 1.	In what newspapers was the advertisement for the sale of binder twine inserted, and how many insertions in each paper ?
2.	To whom was the circular asking for tenders sent ?
3.	What quantity of each kind of twine was purchased by Henderson Black ?
4.	From whom were tenders received ?
5.	Was the highest tender in each case accepted ?
6.	Has any binder twine been sold since June 30, 1901, without tender ?
7.	Where does Henderson Black reside ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Hon. H. G. Carroll) :: 1.	Toronto ' Globe,' Hamilton ' Times,' London ' Advertiser,' Montreal ' Herald,' Montreal ' La Patrie,' Winnipeg ' Free Press,' London ' Record,' Brandon ' Sun,' Windsor ' Record.' Two insertions in each paper.
2.	Two dealers to whom prison twine had previously been sold as well as to other twine dealers known to the prison officials.
3.	Five hundred and eighty-six thousand seven hundred and ninety-three pounds of mixed grades, and 60,000 pounds of sisal.
4.	Tenders were received from Henderson Black, Hobbs Hardware Company, Ontario Binder Twine Company, and S. S. Dickinson.
5.	The highest tender in each case was accepted.
6.	Twine when available has been sold to farmers since July, 1901, in the same manner as previous to that date.
7.	At. St. John's, Quebec.


PARTISANSHIP IN ELECTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEONARD-by Mr. Monk-asked :
1.	What measures does the government purpose adopting in regard to such public employees as take an active and open part in a Federal election ?
2.	Has the Honourable the Prime Minister ever, in the course of a speech in the House
[Stage Direction]
of Commons, given expression to an opinion on the subject of such employees ?
3.	If so, what was that opinion ?
4.	If not, does he hold one, and what is it ?
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The same measures -will be taken in the future as have been taken in the past with regard to public employees who are accused of offensive partisanship. When the charges are brought to the attention of the government they will be investigated, and the case will be dealt with according to the evidence.


SESSIONAL CLERKS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPROTJLE-by Mr. Maclean-asked :
Are there any of the sessional clerks employed in any other capacity in the civil service and drawing pay for it, except their duties here ?
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The government have no knowledge that sessional clerks are employed in the way suggested by the question.


NOTES ISSUED SINCE 1892.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	How many sheets of $1 notes have been issued since 1892 per annum ?
2.	How many sheets of $4 notes have been issued per annum since 1892 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Number of sheets of SI and $4 notes Issued by the comptroller of Dominion currency since 1892, per annum :
Year.	$1 Notes	$4 Notes.
	Sheets.	Sheets.
1893	420,000	....19,0001894	409,000	....18,0001895	447,000	....13,0001896	446,000	....11,0001897	454,000	....13,0001898	586,000	....22,0001899	649,000	....16,5001900	568,000	.... 2,5001901	690,000	....51,000MR. C. R.	DEVLIN, IMMIGRATION	AGENT.
Mr. WILSON-by Mr. Gilmour-asked :
1. Has the attention of the government been called to an interview alleged to have been given by Mr. C. R. Devlin, ex-M.P., Canadian Immigration Agent in Ireland, to the Montreal 'Witness' of the 17tli January, 1902, as follows:- ' Mr. C. R. Devlin, Dominion Immigrant Agent, is a follower of John Redmond. Believes that Ireland should have a separate parliament. Why Canada does not get the Irish immigrant in large numbers.
' Mr. Charles R. Devlin, the Dominion Immigrant Agent at Dublin, Ireland, has often, upon the floor of the House of Commons, and the public platforms of the country, eloquently pleaded the cause of Home Rule for Ireland. An Irish-Canadian, he was always candid in his sympathy for those who were fighting for a separate parliament for the Irish people.


Mr. LEONARD.: 
JAMAICA AND COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. KEMP-by Mr. Clarke-Asked :
1.	Did the commercial agent of the Dominion make representations to the government of Jamaica in reference to the repeal of the law imposing a tax on commercial travellers from Canada ; and has such tax been abolished ?
2.	What steps, if any, have the government taken to cancel or render ineffective certain legislation of the government of Prince Edward Island 'in restraint of the freedom of trade' popularly known as a 'tax on commercial travellers' from other provinces in the Dominion ?
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: 1.	The Department of Trade and Commerce received a communication from the commercial agent at Kingston, Jamaica, dated 9th October last, in which he stated that he had an inquiry some time previous from a Canadian firm asking whether if they sent a representative there to show samples of their manufactures he would be liable to pay a tax under existing law ; and that he had raised the question with the government of Jamaica and hastened to communicate the fact, for the information of the Canadian government, that it is the intention of the government of Jamaica to introduce a Bill at the next session of the legislative council to repeal the law imposing a tax on commercial travellers.
2.	No further information has been received on the subject.


INDEMNITY TO JOSEPH LAROSE.
Mr.  F. D.@: MONK (Jacques Cartier) moved for :
Copy of all correspondence upon the subject of an indemnity to Joseph Larose, of St. Laurent, P.Q., wounded in connection with the Cote St. Luc rifle ranges ; and copy of the judgments of the Exchequer and Supreme Courts upon the petition of right of said Joseph Larose.

He said : In moving for this correspondence with regard to the claim made by Mr. Joseph Larose, of St. Laurent, I merely wish to call the attention of the Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Mr. Borden) to the circumstances regarding it. The Minister of Militia and Defence and the members of this House will probably remember that three or four years ago Joseph Larose was very severly wounded by a bullet, which, as I think is admitted on all hands was established at the time he urged his claim against the government, came from the government rifle ranges at Cote St. Luc. An investigation was held by the department, and after taking evidence, the government came to the conclusion that Joseph Larose was entitled to an indemnity. This was a short time after the injury had been inflicted. The amount of $1,000 was placed in the estimates. But in the meantime the condition of Mr. Larose having become no better but worse, he consulted counsel in Montreal, retaining the services of one of our lawyers there, and after consulting others, his lawyer came to the conclusion that this sum of $1,000 was not sufficient to indemnify Mr. Larose for the injury he had received, the injury in the meantime having become of a permanent nature, as it is to-day. Ha therefore proceeded to obtain a fiat from the government in order to make a claim before the Exchequer Court. He proceeded by petition of right, and his petition was dismissed- I have not seen the judgment-but I think upon some technical ground. Speaking from memory, it was upon the ground that he had been wounded when he was not upon public works, but was off the area where those public works were being executed, and this barred his claim. That is what I was told ; I have not seen the judgment This motion calls for a copy of the judgment of the Exchequer Court, and the judgment of the Supreme Court as well. He appealed his case to the Supreme Court and the appeal was dismissed. To-day the claimant is exactly in the same condition as he was after the wound had been inflicted. He is no better and no worse ; he is disabled for life, and is unable to execute any agricultural work whatever upon his farm. He is not a man of large means, he is obliged to employ a paid servant to do the work which otherwise he would be able to do himself. Under these circumstances, I think it is proper that the equity of his claim should be once more brought to the attention of the government, and I would ask the Minister of Militia and Defence to investigate anew his claim, after communicating with the lawyer who represented him in these two courts, and if possible, to grant him, if not the indemnity which was voted previously by this House, at any rate some indemnity to which I think he is absolutely entitled.' Possiblv, in view of the incapacity in which he finds himself to-day to do any agricultural work, 1 Mr. MONK.
the government might find some employment for him. But under the circumstances, he having been unfortunate in his attempt to recover before the courts, having been defeated, so far as I understand, upon a mere technical point, I think his claim should commend itself to the minister of the department.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: Mr. Speaker, the circumstances as stated by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) are practically the facts. I am not thoroughly familiar with the judgment, but I know the result of the judgment is what the hon. gentleman has stated. In addition to that, however, I am aware that the judge, in delivering that judgment, expressed the hope- I think it was a hope-that the government might look further into the case, that although he had not been able to go into the case on account of some technicalities, he still thought it was a case that the government might fairly investigate further. I may say to the hon. gentleman that I have had it under consideration recently and that I felt that parliament would consent that the sum of $1,000 which was voted two years ago, I think, and not then accepted, should be again offered to Mr. Larose. In view, however, of the statement made by the hon. gentleman I am quite willing that a further examination of Sir. Larose should be made by a competent surgeon. I was not aware that his condition of health was serious. I was under the impression that he was able to do a certain amount of work, but if he is entirely unfitted for doing work perhaps it would be desirable that a further examination of the case should be made, and I shall be very glad indeed to have that done if necessary.


The SIINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: If I indicate to my hon. friend (Sir. Slonk) where he will find the judgments, perhaps he will be good enough to withdraw his motion as it would then be unnecessary for us to get the judgments of the Supreme and Exchequer Courts. Sly hon. friend will find the Exchequer judgment at 6 Exchequer Court Reports, page 425, and the Supreme Court Judgment at 31 Supreme Court Reports, page 206. I may just add that when the accident happened and an investigation was made by the Slilitia Department, it was decided to place $1,000 in the estimates to provide for the remuneration of Sir. Larose to some extent for the accident, although, of course, no liability was admitted. Sir. Larose was not satisfied with the amount then offered and took proceedings in the Exchequer Court by which proceedings he claimed $10,000 damages. It was found in the Exchequer Court that there was no jurisdiction in the court to deal with the case, because the accident, if accident there was, did not happen on what is known as a

public work, it being held that the rifle range at Cote St. Luc was not a public work within the meaning of the Exchequer Court Act. The judge said that he thought the amount then put in the estimates to make provision for the damages would still remain available to him. The amount did remain available. Notwithstanding that La-rose took an appeal to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court held, first, that there was no claim because the accident did not occur upon a public work, the man being a mile distant from the Cote St. Luc rifle ranges from which the bullet was supposed to have been fired, and it held further that as a matter of fact there was no evidence that the rifle ball had been fired from a rifle in the hands of a servant of the Dominion government or even of a militiaman, because the rifle ranges at Montreal are frequented, not only by militiamen, but by those who desire to indulge in target practise. However, so far as the courts are concerned, it has been decided that this matter is out of court. X am very glad to hear the Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Mr. Borden) say that the amount originally intended to be paid might still be available, and I think this is fairly generous treatment under the circumstances, because the Crown has been put to a fairly large amount of costs in defending these suits.


Mr.   MONIC@: I was not aware that the court had decided exactly to the extent which the hon. Minister of Justice just referred, and I am not aware that the rifle ranges, being used with the consent of the government even by a man who is not a militiaman, would shield the government from responsibility. However, in view of the explanations which have been just given, I see no object in pressing the motion, and I would therefore ask permission to withdraw it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I will read from the judgment of the Supreme Court the following extract:
I would say, apart from the reason that this rifie range was not a public work in the sense of the Act, that there is no evidence here that the suppliant's wounding resulted from the negligence of any officer or servant of the Crown while acting within the scope of his duties or employment, or that he suffered any injury on any public work. Moreover, it is not proved who fired the shot that wounded the suppliant. It may. have been fired by one of the amateurs, or volunteers not on duty, who were there practising on that day with the men having what is called in the case, government practise.
Motion withdrawn.


TELEPHONES AND TELEPHONE COMPANIES BILL.
[Stage Direction]
On the Order for :
Second reading of Bill (No. 2) respecting telephone companies-Mr. Maclean.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) to allow this item to be postponed as the government is going to introduce a measure to the same purpose.


Mr. MACLEAN.: May I ask the right hon. gentleman when the government are likely to introduce the measure ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think on Wednesday.


William Findlay Maclean: All right.


DRAINAGE ON AND ACROSS RAILWAY PROPERTY.
Mr.  M. K.@: COWAN (South Essex) moved second reading of Bill (No. 4) respecting drainage on and across the property of railway companies. He said : Mr. Speaker, this subject of drainage on and across the property of railway companies is one that is not new to this House. It was some years ago introduced by the then hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Casey). In 1900, some amendments were made to the Railway Act. The object and the purport of the Bill at that time was to amend the procedure by which municipalites and landowners could drain across the property of railway companies. In 1900, the Act was amended enabling landowners to come before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. Prior to that time they could only reach it through the municipalities and if it were a drain under the Ditches and Watercourses Act of Ontario, not being a municipal drain, within the true sense of a municipal drain, tjjey could not get before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. In 1900, the Railway Act was amended enabling a land owner to come before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council if he desired to drain across the land of a railway company. My object in introducing this Bill is to adopt the provincial laws in force in the various provinces enabling the landowners to use the provincial machinery to drain across the lands of the railway companies under the same procedure as they could drain across the land of any other landowner- with the exception, that wherever the procedure does not enable or provide for notice to be served upon the railway company, a notice shall be served upon them; giving the railway company an opportunity of agreeing with the engineer of the municipality or landowner as to the point at which the railway shall be crossed, and also as to the cost and other details in connection with it. In the event of these two parties, after a conference, failing to agree, the Bill then provides that the county court judge, or the judge having jurisdiction in the district, should settle the matter-the question of costs being determined by the judge. In order to safeguard the interest of the travelling public I have inserted a clause

to the effect that the railway companies shall have the right to do the work upon their own lands. I quite realize that it would be inadvisable to permit every person to invade the railway lands and construct a drain or tunnel under the road-bed. I have, therefore, in the interest of the railway companies, made that provision.
The necessity for drainage across railways was decided on in this House when the Railway Act was amended in 1900. I think the Prime Minister then admitted that there was a necessity for the simplification of the existing machinery. I contend that the Railway Committee of the Privy Council is not the proper tribunal before which a private landowner should be compelled to go in order to enable him to construct a drain costing practically only a few dollars. There are very few farmers who will invoke the machinery at present in force and go to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. The name in itself 'Railway Committee of the Privy Council' scares the average landpwner from coming before that body, and the fact that an ordinary farmer may have to travel hundreds of miles to Ottawa is an absolute barrier. The farmers are not acquainted with the machinery of that tribunal, and I venture to say that there are not 50 per cent of the members of this Blouse; yes, not 50 per cent possibly of the lawyers of this House who are acquainted with the different steps to he taken in order to bring a case before the Railway Committee of the.Privy Council.
The portions of the province of Ontario which I think stand most in need of this legislation are the western counties. Take the counties of Essex, Kent, Elgin and Lambton and I am within the mark when I say that there is not a thousand acres in any of these counties but has been either directly or indirectly assessed and taxed for the construction of drainage work. In those flat sections of the country it is necessary to construct large artificial drains extending for miles, and portions of these counties present the appearance of being ditched like a checker board. So far as the county of Essex is concerned, the fall is to the north into Lake St. Clair. Along the northern border of that county, the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Michigan Central, three large trunk lines have constructed their road-beds. In order that the farmer could successfully prosecute an action under the Ontario law against a railway corporation for the damming up or damming back of water, it must have been a natural stream or a natural watercourse. There are but few natural watercourses in that county, because the water flows gently over the surface of the land with a fall probably of from four feet to nine feet per mile. The result is that there is not sufficient current, and no hill to precipitate the water at a rapid rate so as to form cuts in the Mr. COWAN.
earth, and so there are miles and miles in that county where the water flows gently over the surface of the soil leaving no track behind it that could within the meaning of the law be called a natural watercourse. The result is that when the water flows down to the railway track and the railway company construct their road-bed closing up the point across which that water originally flowed, no action will lie against the railway corporation, because they have not stopped up what is called a natural stream, or a natural watercourse within the meaning of the Ontario decisions.
If a farmer desires to cross that track with his drain he is compelled to come before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. As we know, railway corporations are slow to grant anything that they are not obliged to grant. I venture to say that there are few instances in which any railway corporation has ever permitted a culvert to be constructed under its road-bed, until it was compelled to do so by the highest legal authority. Suppose the matter is in dispute and a farmer in the county of Essex finds it necessary to construct a drain, then you ask him to come 500 miles to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council at Ottawa, to bring his witnesses and his engineers, and to retain counsel. I say there is not one farmer out of a hundred who will do that. I am within the mark in saying, that in these low lying sections of the country every four or five years some farmer loses the entire crop of the soil, because he is unable to make proper drainage across these railways. The land in that section of the country being largely clay and not porous as in sandy sections, it holds the water on the surface and therefore drainage is absolutely necessary. There is scarcely a township in the county of Essex that has not spent hundreds of thousands of doUars in the construction of drains to drain the land. It is a direct tax. These drains are filled up with silt, they cave in and so forth until it becomes necessary to renew them about every ten years on an average. The tax for the construction of large drains in the county of Essex through the flat section, runs from 75 cents to $3 per acre and it is a recurring tax. The railway corporations, I am bound to say, wherever the opportunity was afforded them to prevent the farmer or municipality draining across their lines, have not hesitated to take advantage of the opportunity. One corporation draining through a natural creek found it necessary to cross a railway in the construction of a drain costing between $30,000 and $40,000, and the railway company refused to let the dredge pass under the railway bridge until arrangements were made for the payment what they said-according to the statement of the contractor-was the actual cost. They made an arrangement that they should pass under the bridge on a

Sunday afternoon when there was little traffic. It took twelve men four hours to raise the girders, and before the railway company permitted the dredge to pass, they compelled them to deposit $1,500, as according to the statement of the contractor-
I do not know how true-it was on the understanding that the sum was to cover the expense and that he was to receive back anything in excess of the actual expense. When he wanted to get the dredge out again he was compelled to deposit $1,500 more.
It took twelve men four hours, or forty-eight hours labour of one man, to do it. I complained to the Department of Railways and Canals of what I thought was a deliberate steal, and the reply I got from the department was that they had submitted my complaint to the railway company, and the railway company said there was a contract, and consequently the department could not interfere in a matter governed by a contract between the two parties. The corporation still has that $3,000 for ninety-six hours work. In other words, the railway corporation charged at the rate of $31 per hour for what cost it 12i cents per hour. There is no question of tariff or transportation, which is as important to the western counties as this matter respecting drainage. We do not want anything but what is fair, but we do want to be in a position to prevent a railway corporation from holding water back along its ditches for miles and flooding, in the county of Essex, the most fertile belt in the province of Ontario. Mr. Speaker, I move the second reading of this Bill.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he intends that the laws of the different provinces regarding drainage across the property of railway companies shall apply, not only as they are at present, but also as they may be from time to time amended by the different provinces.


Mr. COWAN.: Section 3 of the Bill provides that subject to the provisions of this Act municipalities and landowners shall have the right of drainage on and across the property of any railway company to the same extent and by the same proceeding as they have by law on and across the property of any other landholders. This is subject to the provision that the railway company shall have the option of itself constructing a portion of the drains crossing its own land. In this I think we would be adopting the laws of the provinces, as they are now. and as they may subsequently be amended. Such is the intention at all events.


John Graham Haggart: I have no objection to the Bill going to the Railway Committee and there being fully discussed. But I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the question whether
we have . the power to delegate _ to the different provinces an exclusive jurisdiction which we possess ourselves. By the provisions of this Bill, we are going to apply not merely the laws and procedure of the different provinces at present in force, but as they may be amended from time to time by the provincial legislature. Of course I may be told that we are simply applying the same principle as applies in the Franchise Act, but I do not think that we have the right to delegate to the different provinces the power to legislate, as they may see fit, from time to time, regarding a matter over which we have exclusive jurisdiction. If we have the right to delegate this power to the provinces why not delegate it to the different municipalities or to the different townships, which are more directly interested and have a better knowledge of the subject than this parliament can possess ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: For the simple reason that no municipality in the county of Essex has any right to make a law which would enable anv landowner to drain across the property of another municipality or another landowner.


John Graham Haggart: If we have the right to delegate to a province could we not also delegate to a municipality ? I object to this Bill on the constitutional ground.
The hon. member has another ground on which he urges the acceptance of his measure. He says it will furnish a more expeditious and less costly means of dealing with the matter-that it is better to have it decided by a county court judge than by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. Well, I have this much confidence in the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, even as at present constituted, to believe that that committee will deal with this matter better than any county court judge or arbitrators or any other judge the hon. gentleman may select in the county of Essex or elsewhere, both from the point of view of equity and cheapness. There is no cheaper tribunal to be had than the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. The party need not bring his witnesses, his counsel need not attend, the Privy Council will still hear the case, and may send, at the expense of the Dominion, an officer of the department for the purpose of looking into and reporting upon it. It is the cheapest and fairest possible tribunal that I know of. It is very popular to say that a party may get his witnesses near at home, and his counsel, and the court, and that that is a much cheaper and better system ; but until a commission is appointed, I believe that the cheapest and most equitable tribunal is the Railway Committee of the Privy Council.
But what I particularly object to is the delegation by the Dominion of its powers to the provinces, and I think that if the question ever comes before the courts, they will decide that we have no power to make

the delegation proposed either to the provinces or to the municipalities.


Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).: May I ask the hon. member for Essex a question ? I understood him to say that the work may be executed by the railway companies, with the object, of course, of securing public safety. Is there any provision in the Bill for determining the amount of expense ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: Under the law the cost of the drain must be determined by the engineer in laying it out. There is an express provision in the Bill that the two engineers -the one named by the landowner and the company's engineer-shall meet to consider the proportion of cost to be borne by the company, and in the event of their failure to agree, the matter will be referred to a county court judge. I do not say that the Bill is perfect in its form, but if there are any little discrepancies they can be removed in committee.


Mr. McGOWAN.: Does the hon. gentleman propose to apply this Bill to the ditches and watercourses of municipalities as well as private parties ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: It applies to all the municipal drainage of the province, both of the private individual and the municipality.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In reply to my hon. friend from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) I may say that I have examined the Bill myself and have submitted it to the officers of my department, and we have come to the conclusion that there is absolutely nothing in it which is not quite within the powers of this parliament.


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

[Stage Direction]
^Return showing :
1.	All contracts awarded by the Department of Railways and Canals during the year ending 30th June, 1901, in which the 'Current Wages' clause was incorporated, and the amount of such contracts.
2.	The number of such contracts in which the
schedule of wages was prepared by the fair wages officers.	*
3.	The number of such contracts in which the schedule of wages was prepared by the contractors and accepted by the department.
4.	The number of such contracts which were unaccompanied by schedule of wages.
5.	The number of contracts awarded by the Department of Railways and Canals which did not contain cither e 'Current Wages' clause or a schedule of wages.-Mr. Puttee.
Copies of all applications for water powers and other similar rights on or connected with the Soulanges canal, and all correspondence with respect thereto, and all reports, letters, and communications of or from engineers or other experts respecting the same. Also, all leases granted to any person, firm or corporation. Mr. HAGGART.
tion of water powers or other similar rights on or connected *with the above named canal.- Mr. Bennett by Mr. Clarke.
Return for copies of all contracts made during two years past between the government of Canada and all steamship companies with whom it is agreed that a subsidy, bonus or grant of any kind shall be given by the government of Canada for services to be rendered in connection with Transatlantic, Transpacific or West Indian business.-Mr. Smith (Wentworth).
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 4.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 4, 1902.