1902-02-27

FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 9) respecting the United Gold Fields Company of British Columbia, Limited.-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 10) respecting the Orford Mountain Railway Company.-Mr. Parmalee.

[Stage Direction]
Annual Report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.-Hon. Mr. Sutherland.

[Stage Direction]
Mr., T. G. RODDICK (Montreal, St. Antoine) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 11) to provide for the establishment of a medical council in Canada. He said : Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take up the time of the House at this stage with any lengthy remarks, but I would simply like your permission to say, Sir, that since I had the opportunity about a year ago in this House, of explaining this measure fully, I have met representatives of the medical profession from every province in the Dominion of Canada, at a convention held in the city of Winnipeg in August last at which this measure was endorsed in its entirety with one or two exceptions or amendments, notably an alteration in the proposed composition of the council. The council, will, under the present draft bill, be somewhat changed in its method of election ; that is to say, that instead of three representatives from each province, as was originally intended, the representation shall now be based oil the number of medical men in each province, making for the larger provinces a very considerable increase. Another change which was decided upon was to have the ten universities of Canada represented on this council. With the exception of these there have been no alterations in the original Bill as presented to this House at the last session of parliament. I have reason to believe that the medical men in this House, of whom there are fourteen or fifteen, are almost unanimous, if not unanimous, in their endorsation of this measure, and I hope they will join me in the request which I intend making on the second reading of this Bill, that the right hon. leader of the government shall cousent to the appointment of a com-

mitte, which shall be composed chiefly of the medical men of the House with one or two legal gentlemen, who shall have an opportunity of studying the measure and of hearing any delegates who may come from the various provinces in order to suggest changes or amendments in It. I have been anxious that the profession should thoroughly understand the measure, and now I am exceedingly anxious that the medical men in this House and my hon. friends of other persuasions, shall also thoroughly understand it. I have purposely not pushed the Bill because I was most anxious that every one should be thoroughly satisfied with it. Now, I think the time has come when I may proceed to a second and a final stage. My motion is seconded by Mr. Bell.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.


Mr. HOLMES asked :: What is the nature and extent of the water privileges on the Welland canal enjoyed by the Merriton Paper Company ? What rental do they pay therefor ? Have they any privileges granted by a previous government for which they are not paying, the usual rate ? If so, how long have they had the same, and for what length of time is it yet to run ?	,


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: The name of the Merriton Paper Company dees not appear on the records of this department either as lessee or as the assignee or sub-lessee of any lease of water privilege on the Welland Canal.


THE PERMANENT CORPS.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria) asked :: 1.	What was the total cost of the permanent corps for the year 1901-2
2.	How many military certificates were issued to officers during the same year ?
3.	How many to non-commissioned officers and men ?
4.	How many of each (a) officers, (b) non-commissioned officers and men attending the schools were from (1) rural corps, (2) city corps, (3) permanent corps ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden) :: 1.	The cost to 31st January has been about $300,000, divided as follows : Pay, $181,619; supplies, $83,909; clothing, $19,000; stores, -$12,000; transport, $4,000.
2.	Officers, 323 certificates.
3.	N.C.O.'s and men, 256 certificates.
4.	This information is being obtained from the officers commanding the units of the permanent corps. It will be some time before it is complete.


SALE OF BINDER TWINE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BLAIN-by Mr. Ward-asked :
1.	How was the binder twine advertised that was unsold on June 30th, 1901 ?
2.	Was the hinder twine sold by public auction or by tender ?
3.	To whom was it sold, and what was the price ?
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) :: 1.	By advertisement in newspapers, and also by circular to previous customers.
2.	By tender.
3.	To S. S. Dickinson, one ton of sisal at $6 per cwt. To Henderson Black, balance of twine at $4.80 per cwt. for sisal twine, $5.10 per cwt. for mixed twine.


EMPLOYEES KILLED ON CANADIAN RAILWAYS.
Mr. PUTTEE asked :: 1.	How many employees of Canadian railways were killed during the year ending June 30th, 1901 ?
2.	How many were injured ?
3.	What was the classification of employment of each ?
4.	In how many cases were railway companies found contributory by negligence through faulty appliances or otherwise ?
5.	In how many cases was indemnity paid by railway companies (a) to the injured, (b) to the relatives of those killed ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: In the absence of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) I beg to say :
1.	One hundred and eighteen employees were killed.
2.	Nine hundred and seventy employees were injured.
3.	Unable to answer this question, as there is no such information on record in the department.
4.	Unable to answer this question, as there is no such information on record in the department.
5.	Unable to answer this question, as there is no such information on record in the department.


AMENDMENT TO SUPREME COURT ACT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaRIVIERE asked :
1.	Has a copy of the following resolution, adopted at a meeting of the bar of Manitoba, held at Winnipeg on Saturday, the 15th day of February, 1902, been received by the Honourable the Minister of Justice :-
' That, as there is now a large and increasing population in Manitoba, the North-west Territories and British Columbia, and in view of the rapidly growing importance of these provinces, it is in the opinion of the bar of Manitoba due to that portion of Canada lying west of Ontario that there should be appointed for such territory at least one judge to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the bar of Manitoba respectfully urges that the government of the Dominion of Canada make such amendment
[Stage Direction]
to the Supreme Court Act as will enable such additional judge to be appointed.'
2.	Will any amendment be proposed by the government to the Supreme Court Act in order that judges of that court may be appointed from the bars of Manitoba, the North-west Territories and British Columbia ?
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: A copy of the resolution referred to was received in the Department of Justice. It is not the present intention to make any amendment to the Supreme Court Act.


TRENT VALLEY AND RICE LAKE CANALS.
Mr. WARD asked :: 1.	Has the Minister of Railways and Canals taken any action since last session regarding the continuation of the Trent Valley Canal from Rice Lake to Lake Ontario ?
2.	Has any engineer's report been obtained by the Department of Railways and Canals since the last report of Mr. Rogers, C.E., as to the comparative advantages of the routes by the Trent River and Port Hope ?
3.	Has the government decided upon the adoption of either of these routes ? If so, *which ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 1.	No action has been taken since last session.
2.	No engineer's report has been obtained since the last report of Mr. Rogers.
S.	No, the adoption of either route has not been decided.


YUKON TERRITORY-SHERIFF EILBECK.
Mr. WARD asked :: 1.	Is Mr. R. J. Eilbeck, sheriff of the Yukon Territory ? If so, when was he appointed, and at what salary ?
2.	Has Mr. R. J. Eilbeck had leave of absence from his duties for several months past, and, if so, has he being drawing his salary as sheriff during the time of such leave ?
3.	Is tho Minister of the Interior or any other member of the government aware that Mr. Eilbeck took an active part in the recent election in West Durham ?
4.	Did the Minister of the Interior or any other member of the government meet Mr. Eilbeck in the West Riding of Durham while the election was pending there ?


Tlie MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) :: 1.	Mr. Eilbeck is sheriff of the Yukon Territory and was appointed 24th October, 1899. His salary was fixed later on at $2,000 per annum. His present salary is $3,000 per annum.
2.	Yes, as to leave of absence. He bas drawn his salary up to the end of December last. In regard to the third and fourth paragraphs, I have to say that it is not to my knowledge that Mr. Eilbeck was in West Durham during the last election, and I am requested by the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) to say that it is not to liis knowledge that he was there.
Mr. LaRIVIERE.


CHANGES IN THE CABINET.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Before the business of the House is proceeded with, I may call to mind that some few days ago the bon. gentleman who leads the opposition asked the government to make some explanation as to the ministerial changes which have taken place recently. I thought at the time, if I may say so, that his request came a little too late for he had noticed the changes in his speech In the debate on the Address from the Throne, and he presented to the House his observations in regard to the matter, which on the whole were not at all unfavourable. But, if my bon. friend wants to have the subject re-opened, of course there can be no objection.
I have only to say, what is within tho knowledge of every one, that in the interval between last session and the opening of this session two vacancies occurred on the bench of the Supreme Court caused by the deaths of Mr. Justice King and Mr. Justice Gwynne. The government, in view of the situation, came to the conclusion that these vacancies on the bench would be worthily filled by Sir Louis Davies and the Hon. Mr. Mills. As to the qualifications of the Hon. Mr. Mills and of Sir Louis Davies it is needless to say anything in this House. They had both been for many years very valuable and trusted members of the House of Commons of Canada. Mr. Mills was one of the oldest of our parliamentarians ; he having sat continuously, with the exception of one session, either in one branch of the legislature or the other, since confederation. Of his legal abilities, and of his constitutional talent aud knowledge, we who are his old colleagues in this House have had many and many evidences.
Sir Louis Davies after having served an honourable career in liis own province came to this House for tlie first time in 1882, and be immediately took a leading and commanding position wbicb be retained to the end of his parliamentary career. Those who have been members of parliament and in public life for a great many years, know that tlie responsibilities which are involved in this country by the discharge of parliamentary duties are very exacting and very absorbing in their nature, and that they tend to produce a strain uftmi tlie system which it is hard to bear. There comes a craving at a certain period of life for rest -not absolute rest, at all events that comparative rest which is to be found in the performance of duties which are not so absorbing. Had it not been for this consideration, for my part I would have hesitated very much before thinking of offering these gentlemen a position on the bench, because I realize as parliament must realize also, how much the government and parliament loses by their absence. Nobody can realize how much I shall lose personally, having

had their valuable support since it was my privilege to become the leader of the Liberal party in Canada. However, these considerations were put aside and we thought we owed it to these veterans ill public life to call them to a sphere where their services would be of a different nature but still equally profitable to their country. But what parliament will lose the bench will gain. As to the fitness of these two gentlemen for the position to which they were called, I have not heard a word of dissent, nor do I believe that on this occasion there will be any objection raised. That they are eminently fitted for the positions they occupy was testified to, I am happy to say, by such a prominent member of the House as my hon. friend from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), and so far as Sir Louis Davies is concerned a tribute was paid to him by the hon. gentleman from Prince (Mr. Hackett) who has been a long life friend, although a political opponent of the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
The question then arose as to how the portfolios which' were vacated by the accession of these gentlemen to the Supreme Court bench were so well filled. Sir Louis Davies had been Minister of Marine and Fisheries from the formation of this government, and the administration came to the conclusion that we would recommend as a most fit and proper person to succeed him, the Hon. James Sutherland, member for North Oxford.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We believed that Mr. Sutherland was a most qualified person to discharge the duties appertaining to that important office. We knew Mr. Sutherland beforehand. He had been for two years a member of the administration without portfolio and during these two years the House has had on more than one occasion reason to appreciate his great administrative abilities, as the House had also occasion to appreciate for many years before the sterling qualities with which he is endowed.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is the first time that the portfolio of Marine and Fisheries has been held by a gentleman who does not belong to the maritime provinces, but though the fishing industry in the maritime provinces is of very great importance, it must be remembered that there are other provinces in the Dominion which also have very great interests in that industry. The province of Ontario, if it is a second, is a good second to the maritime provinces in the extent of its fishing interests. Moreover, while -it is proper that the portfolio should be held by one who represents a province in which there is a valuable fishing industry, it is not to be disputed that it is fit and proper that in the representation in the
Cabinet all provinces should have a voice, and everybody will agree with me that the proportion as to the representation between one province and another province is not absolute, nor can there be a cast iron rule about it. Some elasticity must prevail according to time and circumstance, and I think that under the present circumstances the choice that we have made will not be criticized in any part of the Dominion.
With regard to the portfolio of Justice we came to the conclusion that nobody could fill it better than the hon. gentleman who for five years has been Solicitor General, and who has discharged the duties of that office not only with marked acceptance from both sides of the House, but with conspicuous ability.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We believe that although the portfolio of Justice has been held in the past by lawyers of very great eminence, the Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick will prove himself in every way their peer.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This left a vacancy in the office of the Solicitor General, and though the Solicitor General does not belong to the Cabinet, perhaps it may not be out of place that I should say that we thought of offering the position to a young gentleman from the province of Quebec, who has shown himself on every occasion that he addressed the House, to be a man of very great ability indeed. Mr. Carroll is Solicitor General.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It only remains for me to say that in view of the growing importance of the west, Senator Templeman has been appointed and sworn a member of the Cabinet without portfolio.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: These are the changes that have taken place in the Cabinet, and such as they are we present them to the House with the full belief that they will command the support of our friends and challenge the criticism of our opponents.


Mr. SPEAKER.: It is perhaps better that a motion should be made. It is moved by Sir Wilfrid Laurier that the House do now adjourn.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Mr. Speaker, as there seems to be some doubt in the mind of my right hon. friend as to whether or not it was proper that these explanations should be made to the House, I took- the opportunity of looking into that question, and I find that it is laid down by the highest authorities that a government should, even when reconstructed, offer explanations to the House. In ' Todd's


Robert Laird Borden: ready to give him a helping hand in that way, and to point out the right course when we think he is not steering exactly in the proper direction.
AVitli regard to the position of Minister of Justice, I agree with the right hon. gentleman that that office has been held by very able men, and I believe that my hon. friend the present Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) will uphold its high traditions. 1 may say in passing that the office of Minister of Justice has been held by no less than four members of the bar of the province Of Nova Scotia, of which I have the honour to be a member. The first was the present chief justice of the province, the Hon. James McDonald, the next was Sir John Thompson, then Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, and lastly the Hon. Arthur R. Dickey. Therefore, we of the bar of Nova Scotia always feel a considerable interest in the Ministry of Justice and in the gentleman who happens to fill that position for the time being. I have not the same intimate acquaintance with the hon. gentleman who takes the position of Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Carroll), that I have with the Minister of Justice, but I desire also to extend to him my congratulations on the honour which has been bestowed upon him.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask how the present government can reconcile these acts with the position of their colleague, the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock), in view of the fact that he placed on record a few years ago their opinion, that no member of this House should be appointed to a place of emolument under the Crown until at least two years after he had left the House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is something which is very easily explained. That is one of those falsehoods which have been started by some gentlemen on the other side, repeated by his neighbour, and then by him to his neighbour, and at last by everybody. The truth of the matter is simply this, that I think in 1894 or 1895, my hon. friend the present Postmaster General, who was then a private member of this House, introduced a Bill in the sense which has just been mentioned by my hon. friend from Grey. My hon. friend the Postmaster General thought, rightly or wrongly-for my part, I thought wrongly- that we should have that legislation on our statute-book. I never favoured it, nor do I know of a single member on this side of the House who expressed approval of it. My hon. friend the Postmaster General was in advance of the time. He received no support from the other side of the House. Hon. members opposite scouted his Bill, they would not vote for it, and it never came even to a second reading. It was read the first time, and never went beyond that, and the matter was absolutely for-

gotten until four or five years afterwards, wlien these lion, gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House thought fit to resurrect that old dead issue in the hope of making some political capital out of it. But I can say to my hon. friend that after all I am only flesh and blood, and I am satisfied to have the approval of the country for the changes we have made.


Mr. MONK.: May I ask the right hon. gentleman if there is any truth in the rumour of the resignation of the hon. Postmaster General ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I can assure my hon. friend that there is no truth in it.
Hon. DAVID TISDALE} (South Norfolk). Mr. Speaker, however the right hon. leader of the government may have answered the remark of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), I hope he does not deny that that position was a strongly advocated plank of the Liberal candidates throughout the province of Ontario. I really forget what happened to that Bill, but I know that a number of Liberals were in favour of it, and I know that throughout the province of Ontario, not only during the contest of 1891, but in 1887 and previously, one of the great subjects of complaint by Liberals was that the Conservative party were appointing members of parliament or men which had been members of parliament to offices of emolument. For my part, I am on record in ' Hansard ' in favour of doing so, because I am one of those who are willing to express their opinions, whatever they may be, upon all questions that come before this House. At the same time, it is perfectly proper-and that is one of the reasons why I rose at this time-to ask explanations from a party which in opposition advocated a measure on which a great principle was at stake, and in regard to which the electors of the country held very different and very strong opinions. It is very proper to recall to the recollection of hon. gentlemen a principle which they advocated when out of power, and which they abnegate when they are in power.
This is not a matter worthy of long discussion, but there is another subject on which I would ask leave to trouble the House in connection with these same appointments. Let me say that, so far as the two hon. gentlemen themselves are concerned, I have every confidence in their integrity and ability to fill the high positions to which they have been called. I think their appointments are excellent ones, but there is, in this respect, another high principle departed from entirely. In a session not long since, legislation was introduced to fix a limit of age, after which no one should be appointed. It was proposed to go even further and make this legislation retroactive. I opposed it because I considered that it would be a breach of faith on the 14
part of parliament to make ex post facto legislation with regard to gentlemen who had accepted positions under the law guaranteeing their retention of these positions during life. What more do we find ? We find the hon. the Minister of Justice declaring that he proposes to introduce this session a Bill fixing an age limit in the case of the county court judges of Ontario, and fixing a limit which would have prevented the making of one of the appointments lately made. I could not gather from the remarks of the hon. minister whether he proposed to make the Bill relating to the county court judges retroactive or not, and I wish to place myself on record as opposing any such proposition. Why should he deal with the county court judges of Ontario and not with the judges of other courts ? Why is Ontario specially singled out, whose county court judges are in every way capable ? And if you are going to apply any limit to the county court judges, you should make the same limit apply to the higher judges. Were you to apply to the Supreme Court the age limit, which it is proposed to apply to the county court judges, you would render the last gentleman appointed to the Supreme Court bench ineligible for the position.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend was not in the House when I made a few remarks a day or two ago with reference to prospective legislation affecting county court judges, and I know him to be an extremely fair minded gentleman who would not willingly misrepresent any statement made in this House. My hon. friend must bear in mind that there never was any intention to introduce exceptional legislation with regard to Ontario. Any legislation that may be introduced with respect to the county court judges must be made applicable to all such judges throughout the Dominion. With respect to the other question, as to whether or not similar legislation might be made applicable to the High Court judges, I drew attention to the fact that the county court judges hold their office under an entirely different tenure, and while we have no right to interfere in any way with the High Court judges, we have special jurisdiction by statute with respect to county court judges. In any event there is no desire to interfere at all unnecessarily with any judges. On the contrary, my desire is to respect the bench in every particular, to hold absolutely sacred the position of judges. But at the same time, while I hold their position sacred, it must be borne in mind that the public have certain rights and that it is no advantage to the bench that men should occupy positions there for which they are admittedly not qualified. With respect to the age limit, it was intended to provide a limit which would vary from seventy to seventy-five years, coupled with a tenure of office of at least twenty-five years. And in



addition it was suggested that the change should be made optional, so far as the High Court judges are concerned, because we could not make it compulsory with them. With respect to county court judges, if a man has reached the advanced age of from seventy to seventy-five and has in addition been twenty-five years on the bench, to allow him to retire on full pay would not be a very great hardship.


COMMUTATION OF SENTENCES-ARSON OR INCENDIARISM.
Mr.  F. D.@: MONK (Jacques Cartier) moved for :
Return showing (1st) the number of commutations of sentences that have been granted through the Department of Justice to prisoners convicted of arson or incendiarism during the years 1899, 1900 and 1901 respectively ; (2nd) the places where the crimes were committed ; (3rd) the sentences imposed ; (4th) in which cases the report of the trial judge was favourable to conviction.	.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: There is no objection to the motion, except so far as concerns the fourth paragraph, that which refers to the report of the trial judges. These reports have invariably been considered by the Department of Justice as confidential communications, and it is not intended to depart from the rule that has been followed by the department since confederation. I am sure that my hon. friend will see that we cannot bring down these reports.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have no objection to withdrawing the fourth paragraph.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In that case I will move to strike out all the words after the word ' imposed.'
Motion (Mr. Monk) amended as proposed, agreed to.


COMMISSIONS TO CANADIAN OFFICERS IN THE BRITISH ARMY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle) (translation), moves for :
Copy of all papers and correspondence relating to the granting of commissions to Canadian officers in the British army.
Mr. Speaker, last year I moved a similar resolution to this one ; it was agreed to, on March 11th. On May 11th, I again moved for the production of those papers, and the government gave me the formal promise that they would be brought down as speedily as possible, but it was only on the day before prorogation that I got a certain number of the documents called for. I have now before me papers brought down last year; and they came partly from the Department of Militia, partly from Ri-deau Hall. In the file coming from Rideau Hall is to be found, a telegram dated March Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
31st 1900, from Mr. Chamberlain to His Excellency, in which reference is made'to two despatches sent by His Excellency to Mr. Chamberlain, the first one dated March 20th, the other dated March 30th. The latter is not to be found in the return. It seems but fair that, having the answer, we should also have the question which called for that reply.
In the other file, I find a despatch from Mr. Chamberlain to Lord Minto, dated April 9th, in reply to a despatch from His Excellency, of April 6th. Well, I should like to have the despatch of His Excellency to Mr. Chamberlain, which has given rise to the reply of the latter. On April 19th, Mr. Chamberlain wires again to Lord Minto, replying to a despatch of April 15th. Here again, we have the answer ; but the telegram which called for this reply we have not. Then comes another despatch dated April 27th, from Lord Roberts, the then Commander-in-chief of the troops in Africa, to His Excellency the Governor General, in reply to a despatch of April 17th from His Excellency to Lord Roberts. The latter despatch is not to be found in the return, Then we have a despatch from Mr. Chamberlain to Lord Minto, dated May 17th, in reply to a despatch from His Excellency, dated April 18th. That despatch of His Excellency is missing from the return. Then comes a despatch sent by Lord Minto to Mr. Chamberlain, on November 25th, 1900, which reads as follows :
It will be recollected that Her Majesty's government originally offered 30 commissions, and it was arranged that of these 24 should be allotted to Canadian troops serving in South Africa, the nominations to be forwarded to me by Lord Roberts, and submitted by me to the War Office, and the remaining six gentlemen of the Canadian Militia not serving in South Africa, recommendations to be forwarded by myself to the War Office.'
So, in this despatch, reference is made by His Excellency to arrangements entered into-between what parties ? I do not know. How those arrangements were made is another matter as to which we are left in the dark. Under these arrangements, the terms on whicli Canadian officers were offered commissions in the English army seem to have been altered.
If we are to be enlightened as to that matter, the whole correspondence must be brought down.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are met with a very important question here. Last session, I raised that question ; but as it was on the eve of prorogation day, and as from want of time, I could not use the phraseology required by parliamentary etiquette, I recollect, Mr. Speaker, that you called me to order ; but it is desirable that we should once for all come to an understanding on the point I am now referring to.
That His Excellency the Governor General does occupy a position in this country
421 FEBRUARY 26, 1902 422	
which is perfectly identical to the position occupied by the Sovereign in Great Britain or, by sovereigns in countries where a representative form of government like ours obtains, is a fact that no member in this House questions. But if we are to take any stock in what well recognized writers on parliamentary law state, the inference to be drawn is that the conduct of the Governor General was not always what it should have been, for one who really occupied the position of a constitutional sovereign. We have been told over and over again that the Governor General is the chief of the Canadian executive, the representative of the British Crown. In that capacity, of course, His Excellency plays in this country the part acted in Great Britain by the King. I do not wish to drag in the personality of His Excellency, which I am forbidden to do by rule 13 of this House, not to mention the rule imposed by good breeding in such matters, But I think, Sir, that if the constitutional rule laid down by Todd and several other authorities in parliamentary procedure holds good ; namely, that His Excellency is in this country both the chief of the executive and the representative of the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, there is, so to say, a dual personality in His Excellency. As chief of the Executive, he is, just like the chief of the Executive in England, liable to err. If the conduct of His Excellency is open to blame, that blame I have to cast upon the Governor General's advisers, namely, his responsible ministers. But when we come to deal with the representative of the Colonial Office, with the employee of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, I think the representatives of the people of Canada have the right to criticise his course of action and to say whether the acts of the functionary of the British government, as well as the acts of the colonial secretaries, are deserving of blame or not. From that two-fold doctrine it follows that the Governor General is playing a very dangerous rdle when he seeks shelter under his prerogatives as the representative of the British Crown. So the Governor General could establish two classes of papers, in his files : he could give publicity to such documents as he might think fit to communicate to parliament, and in the same breath, assuming the rfiie of an employee of Downing Street, he could withhold other documents and say : ' For these papers I am not responsible to the people of Canada, as they refer to my secret relations with tfce Colonial Office.' Within the last two years this question has been threshed out in the Canadian press. On several occasions, if we are to believe press reports, differences of a rather serious nature have arisen between the Governor General and his ministers, either in connection with the sending of troops to South Africa, or as to the production of such 14J	papers as I have just referred to. Later on, last fall, similar controversies are said to have occurred upon the occasion of the distribution of medals and decorations bestowed by the Crown upon the Canadian subjects. The ministers are said to have claimed the right of advising His Majesty's representative as to the bestowal of such rewards. That such a doctrine is a sound one I firmly believe. We have been told that His Excellency, using a prerogative which the King himself does not dare arrogate to himself in his own kingdom, and relying upon his dual responsibility, did exercise the right of awarding decorations to whomsoever he pleased. In the matter of decorations, whether medals or titles or other knick-knacks of the same kind, I confess that I remain perfectly indifferent. But here, what is at stake is the production of papers which would materially help us to understand whether, in this matter of sending out troops to South Africa, and of enlisting volunteers, two years ago, and again last fall, the advisers of His Excellency did really take action with proper freedom ; whether His Excellency did consult them on all those points, or whether, His Excellency thought it expedient-always assuming that dual personality referred to above-to act now the role of a representative of the Crown, now the part of a representative of Downing Street ; seeking above all to safeguard the interests of the mother land and leaving it to his advisers to watch over the interests of the colony. Such is the question which now confronts us. And while I call for this return, I should like the right hon. the Prime Minister to throw some light on a point which affects very materially his constitutional position, as also the relations which should exist between the Governor General and his advisers, and the broader relations which should exist between Great Britain and her colonies. I often heard the right hon. Prime Minister claim as his leader-Sir Louis Hypolite Lafontaine, and I may say that whenever he referred in such eloquent terms to that political fathership, I cheered him to the echo. Now, Mr. Speaker, Lafontaine did not hesitate to provoke a ministerial crisis, even at the risk of bringing Canada to the verge of rebellion, and why, Sir ? It was in order to have it settled once for all, whether the people of Canada, like the English people, were free to manage their own affairs without any foreign power having the right of interfering with their domestic policy. The debate which culminated into the breach between Lord Metcalfe and Lafontaine grew out of a very trivial circumstance: namely, the appointment of a deputy-sheriff for the county of Carleton. But, to quote Lafoutaine's words, the question was as to whether the Governor was to be advised by his ministers or not ; the question was as to whether the people of Canada were free to
[Stage Direction]
manage tlieir own affairs, reserving to tlie sovereign the allegiance which is the bounded duty of every portion of the British empire, without the Governor having the right to assume when it pleases him the functions of an agent of the Colonial Office and to exercise a dual personality.
I am led to think, Mr. Speaker, that the question was discussed by His Excellency and his advisers, from the fact that in the first despatch from Mr. Chamberlain to Lord Minto, dated March 20th, 1900, the following occurs :
' The Secretary of State far War offers four Royal Artillery eight infantry commissions to students Royal Military College, Kingston, recommended by Commandant as in every way suitable, ten Royal Artillery twenty infantry to gentlemen selected by your coming Imperial Officer Commanding local forces.'
So, as the House will see, Mr. Chamberlain pointed out that those commissions were to be given to gentlemen recommended by the commandant of the militia.
In another despatch sent by Mr. Chamberlain to Lord Minto, on the 9th of April, in reply to that despatch of the 6th April, which is missing from the return, I read what follows :
' Referring to your telegram of April 6th re the selection of candidates for commissions, the candidates should he recommended by you after consulting with /our Ministers and Imperial Officers.
" You should communicate to your Ministers suggestion contained in your confidential despatch of 24th ult. as to Board for wise selection of candidates, and list should be submitted to you through your Ministers with their recommendations. Responsibility for the final selection remaining with you."
,	(Signed) CHAMBERLAIN.
What happened between March 20th and April 9 ? Whether there was controversy between His Excellency and his constitutional advisers is more than I can say. But I incline to the belief that the matter was discussed between them, and that His Excellency then wrote to Mr. Chamberlain for his opinion, and that the Colonial Secretary thought it wiser to split the difference. The selection of the officers he left to the ministers, or rather, he advised the Governor General to Invite the opinion of his advisers on this point, adding that responsibility for the final selection remained with the Governor General. Neither can it be questioned, from the tone of the first despatch of Mr. Chamberlain, that His Excellency was free to take action after asking the sole advice of the officer commanding the Canadian militia.
A constitutional question is at stake here of the utmost Importance. To ascertain on what point the controversy then turned is the question. It is desirable that the issue should be clearly defined as between His Excellency and his advisers.
After a debate, the first and last landmarks of which we have, hut the Inter-
Mr. BOURASSA.: mediate stakes of which are missing, as showing the route travelled over, it stands to reason that there was a difference of opinion ; for, otherwise, how are we to account for what, apparently, has transpired ? What is the position which the government occupies towards the representative of Downing Street ? That Canada is a nation, enjoying the full privileges of self-government is a boast we are now familiar with. But the question which is now being raised is one that bears upon the relations existing between the irresponsible representative of the Crown and his constitutional advisers. The question which now confronts us is this : whenever there arises a question as to which the interests of the Canadian people and the interests of the English people clash, ought not the Governor General to refer the matter to the cabinet, which is the sole medium of communication between His Excellency and the will of the people, and should he not act upon the advice of his ministers ?
This doctrine Australia for one, upholds. What happened, last fall, in that colony ? Bills concerning immigration, trade and navigation were brought up and carried through parliament. The bill on immigration had been framed on the lines of the bill carried through the legislature of British Columbia in connection with Mongolian labour and immigration. Mr. Chamberlain wrote to Mr. Barton, the Prime Minister of Australia, asking him to commit himself to have this Act amended, so as not to create bad blood in Japan, a country with which Great Britain was seeking to make a treaty. In the same despatch, it was recommended that the Act respecting trade and navigation should be amended, so as not to interfere with the interests of the great British companies which were engaged in trade with Australia. Mr. Barton replied through the Governor General, Lord Hopetoun, simply promising that he would do his best to comply with the wishes expressed by Mr. Chamberlain. The Australian parliament was called together, and the first debate that was raised in the House at the beginning of the session, turned on the very question whether the Prime Minister had been warranted in writing to Mr. Chamberlain that he would endeavour to have the Act modified, which was mentioned in the despatch referred to, so as to make it tally with the interests of the mother country. The opposition leader, Mr. Reid, strongly criticised the government because the premier had assumed upon himself to send an answer to Mr. Ghamberlain's despatch before first ascertaining the views of parliament. From Mr. Reid's firm attitude, Mr. Barton was frightened into notifying Mr. Chamberlain that he could not comply with his wishes.
What happened in Canada ? Following in the footsteps of Australia, British Columbia had passed a bill regarding Mongolian la-

bour and immigration. Into tlie merits or demerits of that legislation I do not wish to go. Let it suffice to say that the provincial legislature, in passing that measure into law, acted within their constitutional jurisdiction. And this measure it was at the demand of Mr. Chamberlain that it was set aside by a Liberal government, a government the members of which formerly stood up here and championed provincial rights. The Dominion government did not hesitate to blot out from the statute-books of a province of Canada an Act passed by the legislature of that province, in the full exercise of their constitutional prerogatives.
On the floor of the Australian parliament, Mr. Reid has laid down this principle, that no prime minister of a British colony, enjoying free institutions, has the right to ' enter into relations with the Colonial Qffice and to communicate to the same his policy, whether actual or contemplated, before having first secured the assent of his parliament. To quote Mr. Reid's own words : ' The prime minister of Australia is responsible to the people and the parliament of Australia, but he is neither responsible to the Colonial Secretary nor to the British parliament.'
It was not my intention to have gone into the matter in all these details, nor to have spoken at such great length, but this I am bound to say, that after having been in waiting four mortal months for this correspondence, and after having received but a garbled correspondence, while, as I have pointed out, the Governor General's answers to despatches have been withheld, I think I am warranted in hoping that more light will be shed on the matter by the government bringing down the documents which have been withheld, so that our doubts may be cleared up as to the relations which ought to exist between the Governor General and his advisers.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: There can be no objection to this motion passing, and I will make my best efforts to have the papers brought down as quickly as possible-for many reasons, first and not the least, because I am sure my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) will find how much he has been led astray in some of his surmises.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I will be very happy.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I don't know about that ; I do not think my hon. friend will be as happy as he pretends to be. I may say to my hon. friend that so far as concerns any subject which has been concluded, which is no longer pending, such for instance as the one now under discussion concerning the granting of commissions in the British army to Canadian officers, which subject is concluded, there is no reason; whatever why every document which we have in our possession should not be brought down. I may say in the meantime that there are some classes of subjects in respect of which it is not possible to comply with all his wishes. Last year my hon. friend laid great stress upon the fact that a dispatch of the Colonial Office to the Governor General of Canada, of the 24th of March, had not been brought down. I refreshed my memory this morning upon the debate which took place last year, and I gave my attention to this dispatch of the 24th of March, 1900, which had not been brought down. I took occasion also this very morning to look over that dispatch, and I find it is a confidential dispatch, nor is it in my power to disclose its contents. I will say to my hon. friend that there may be cases in which it would not be advisable, indeed it would be a great breach of public duty, to lay the dispatches on the Table of the House. For instance, let us suppose that one of these dispatches referred to the arbitration which was at that moment going on between Russia and Great Britain regarding certain seizures of our vessels which were made a few years ago by the Russian authorities. That is a subject the
last	of	which	we	have not	heardyet.	We	have	an	arbitration	goingon,	and	until	that	is disposed of	
my hon. friend will agree with me that it is not advisable to bring down the dispatches relating to it. Then let us suppose another matter, let us suppose there was another dispatch of the nature, for instance, of a confidential communication between the Canadian and the British governments with regard to fortifications, either at Halifax, or Esquimau, or some other stratege-tical point. My hon. frienu will agree that it would not be in the public interest to bring down such a document and place it on the Table of the House, giving it publicity, making it possible for the foreign press to publish it, and giving away secrets of a military character which in their very *nature ought to be treated as confidential. Therefore my hon. friend, I trust, will realize that there are certain communications confidential iu their nature which cannot be brought down. But I am free to lay down the principle that whenever a subject has been completed, which subject is not of a foreign nature, which is not of a confidential character, a subject regarding the relations of the Canadian government or any official of the Canadian government with an Imperial officer, upon a subject which is completed and is no longer at issue, in that case my hon. friend is entitled to have all the information which is at our disposal, and that information he shall have. I have only to add that perhaps he will have an opportunity then to change his mind, and to offer us some apology for the bad opinion he lias entertained of some of his friends.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) Before this motion carries, I wish to offer one or two remarks. Does the hon. member for

Labelle mean to stand up on the floor of this House as the champion of popular rights V Can he say with the French poet:
' Je suis venu trop tard dans un monde trop vieux.'
Or, again, has the hon. gentleman mastered the elementary principles of the British constitution ? Had he been conversant with the principles by which our parliament is guided, as well as all other parliaments in which a constitution obtains which is based on constitutional principles similar to ours, he could, to say the least, have dispensed with going at such great length into a review of an uncontested right, and one which no member of this House who is conversant with the principles of our constitution, would even dream of questioning. The hon. gentleman no doubt forgot in addressing the House that on both sides, and even among his friends and colleagues, are to be found, men who are acquainted with these principles as well as I am, and who, being his elders know better than he does what those principles mean. After all this is a motion to which, according to British parliamentary rules, no objection could be raised.
It refers to militia matters ; it refers to the commissions granted to Canadians in the British army. The hon. gentleman in dealing with this matter, indulged in much hair-splitting. To his mind, His Excellency the Governor General now represents the Crown, now represents something else. The Governor General represents the King, and, at the same time, he is the servant of the people of Canada. Then, the hon. gentleman, launched out, with great flourishes, into a recital of our long-continued struggles for the conquest of our rights. That the Governor General in Canada represents the Crown ; that he discharges a dual function, namely, as the representative of the Crown on the one hand, and as an official of the English government on the other hand, everybody here is aware. But no matter how you may look at the question, can there be any doubt, or has any one ever questioned our rights to control our own domestic affairs ?
A mere glance at the constitutional history of England is sufficient to satisfy us that there is no room for the least doubt in the matter. Only to such people as are not conversant with that history can it occur that we are without the right of self-government here. But, for our part, we know that history, and I would advise my young friend from Labelle to peruse the three volumes written by Mr. de Franqueville on the British constitution, and he will find there that we are enjoying the right of self-government. Does the hon. gentleman wish to pose in this House as the champion of our blood-bought liberties, within the last centuries ? This motion refers to military matters. Now, these matters come under the


Frederick Debartzch Monk: direct control of the British parliament, and [DOT]the same applies here. This control was secured long ago, with the abolition of the ' Mutiny Act.' In the Middle Ages charters, it is expressly provided, that the people of England, through their parliament, shall have the control of all military matters. Under the ' Bill of Rights ' and the 1 Act of Settlement ' of 1701, ail military matters are placed under the control of parliament. This was a recognized right from the reign of William of Orange. For many years, the ' Mutiny Act ' had to be resorted to, in order to give a further sanction to the principle that parliament which appropriated the public moneys, also had the sole control of military matters. But the * Mutiny Act ' is a thing of the past. And the hon. gentleman laboured to no purpose, when reviewing the conduct of Governor Metcalfe and the history of those times.
Should any one dream of re-enacting now the ' Mutiny Act,' well might he compare with Rip Van Winkle who slept for twenty years, and never knew what had transpired within that lapse of time. A motion such as the one proposed by the hon. gentleman, would carry without any objection being raised to it, in the British House of Commons. In that House it would not even be debated, there being so many useful and practical questions which come up for discussion, and owing also to the fact that this right of control of parliament is so uncontested a right that nobody would ever dream of calling it in question.


DISMISSALS FOR POLITICAL REASONS.
Mr.  A. C.@: BELL (Pictou) moved for :
Return showing the number of employees of the Departments of Public Works, Railways and Canals, Post Office, Marine and Fisheries, Customs and Inland Revenue, who have been dismissed between July 12th, 1896, and January 1st, 1902; also, how many of these dismissals have been made for political reasons.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. .James Sutherland).: I would suggest to my hon. friend (Mr. Bell) that a return was brought down giving this information down to March, 1901. If the hon. gentleman would amend this resolution so as to cover the dismissals since that time, he will have all the information he desires, and it will be possible to have the returns on very short notice.


Mr. BELL.: Does it cover all these points?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I cannot speak for all the departments. There is no desire to deny the hon. gentleman any information he wishes, but it will facilitate matters if he will amend his motion so as to make it cover the facts since the last return.


John William Bell: The motion then might be amended to make it read ' since the last return ' ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: If the words ' not already brought down ' were added, that would cover the point.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Then, I would move that the motion be amended in that way.
Motion (Mr. Bell), amended as proposed, agreed to.


TABLE OF PRECEDENCE FOR CANADA.
Mr. SAMUEL HUGHES (North Victoria) moved :: That in the opinion of this House the [DOT] Table of Precedence for Canada,' as set forth in the Statutes of Canada and ' Canada Gazette,' should be amended either by omitting section 11, ' Archbishops and Bishops according to seniority,' or by giving a place in said section 11 ' to the clergymen of religious denominations other than those having '	" archbishops and bishops," the word ' seniority ' to be interpreted by ' territorial ' area, or in some other appropriate manner, and in other ways.
He said :	In making this motion I will
state briefly that in doing so I have no bias whatever. We find in the Dominion of Canada, where there is no union of church and state, that last autumn as well as on a former occasion of considerable political importance to this country, precedence was given to the members of certain churches over equally prominent, equally cultured, equally good and equally noble minded men of other churches in this country, although, as I say, there is no union of church and state here. I do not need to make any apology for introducing this question. The custom of recognizing the clergy in the table of precedence is undoubtedly a relic of old times, of former days, when there was a union between church and state. It is a relic which possibly does no harm and which, so far as Canada is concerned, may be allowed to continue, only I maintain that all the great denominations in this country should be equally recognized. It has been stated that my motion is not in the right form, that I should have moved that a humble petition be sent to His Majesty and to the Imperial Executive. I do not think that is the proper course at all in this connection. I have taken the course of presenting the facts to the House, of presenting my views to the House, of bringing the subject before the House, and if it meets with the approval of the House, as I am satisfied it will meet with the approval of this country, then it becomes the duty of the Prime Minister to lay the matter by petition before the Imperial authorities, asking them to make a change.
It has been stated that this is a personal matter with His Majesty the King. I need not tell an intelligent legislative body such as this that His Majesty the King has no personal authority in such matters whatever. A great many people are under the misapprehension that His Majesty, or His Excellency the Governor General, in his individual capacity, has certain prerogatives in certain circumstances. They have none. When the question of purchase of commissions in the British army was done away with, people were told that it was one of Her Majesty's own personal prerogatives that was exercised. But she exercised that prerogative with the advice of her responsible ministers. The Sovereign, or His Excellency the Governor General, have no prerogative other than as they are advised by the Prime Minister in Great Britain or in this country. The statement that the sovereign, being the sole fountain of honour, has absolute control of this matter is not borne out by either law or custom under the British or Canadian constitutions. These tables have been changed from time to time on petition, possibly not in this colony, although I believe that in this colony they have been changed. On representation from the people in the various colonies concerned they have been changed, and they may be changed, and should be changed again. I shall not discuss the question at any length further than to reiterate that if the government of this country sees fit they can petition the Imperial authorities to have the table of precedence changed in order to include the leading ministers of other churches, gentlemen equally prominent, equally cultured, equally noble, equally good. I make no reflection on those of any church that is now recognized. I say if the government make a proper request to the imperial authorities there is no doubt that the request will be acceded to. and we will find that the various non-prelatical churches will be recognized in the table of precedence along with those already recognized. I need not say that the table as at present constituted is offensive to many of the denominations that are recognized on account of their desire to see all parties recognized. It is offensive in the fact that it gives some churches prominence while it does not recognize others. I shall conclude the few remarks that I purpose making upon this question by reading one of many letters which I received from prominent clergymen and others throughout the country. I read this one because it is a copy of a letter which was forwarded to the Prime Minister some time ago by a very prominent ecclesiastic. It is as follows -
Montreal, October 28, 1901.
The Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., Premier of the Dominion of Canada,
Dear Sir,-In the matter of ecclesiastical precedence at state functions in Canada, permit tne to approach you in a spirit of candour without narrowness and with a desire to avoid religious agitation by public discussion. I wish to present this matter in the same broad minded spirit with which I have tried to consider any public question in which I have been interested. As a resident of this province where I have spent most


The PRIME MINISTER.: I cannot complain of the manner in which the question has been brought before the House by my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes, Victoria). The question itself is not of very great importance, but unfortunately it is one of those questions which have created a good deal of friction at different times in the history of confederation. I must take issue at once with the statement made by my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes), that the government of Canada-whatever government may have been in power-is responsible for the present condition of things. As a matter of fact the authority which is responsible for the present table of precedence is not in Canadsf, but in England, and it is His Majesty the King. The Governor General is not a free agent in this matter, I may say. It is not permitted to him to follow his own inclinations as to what degree of honour he shall give to those whom he invites to his table, but he is instructed from England as to how he shall proceed in all state ceremonies, and as to how he shall seat those who are his guests. The present table of precedence is, I believe, as
old as confederation, although modified since in a very slight degree. Before confederation the instructions as to precedence went back as far as the union. For my part I am of opinion that the dissenting churches have good reason to feel aggrieved at the manner in which they have been treated in this respect, the feeling became more acute at the time of the visit of the Prince of Wales. I believe, however, that the churches are somewhat to blame if they find themselves placed in that position. For thirty years or more, the bishops and archbishops of the Episcopal churches-in this country the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England-have alone been recognized in the table of precedence.
I would not offer my own interpretation of history in this matter, but if I have correctly interpreted history, my impression is that in former times the dissenting churches did not seek any such recognition as is now sought by the motion of the hon. gentleman. Whether they were right or wrong it matters not, because if at the present time the rfissenting churches wish to be recognized in this country they ought to be recognized. There can be no doubt as to that. I would point out that the difference in this respect between Canada and Great Britain is all to the advantage of Canada. In Great Britain the Church of England is alone recognized.


Samuel Hughes: No.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think so. Mr. HUGHES (Victoria). Roman Catholic bishops are also recognized.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If the Roman Catholic bishops are recognized in Great Britain, it is I think by tolerance and not by established rule. But whether or not the Roman Catholic Church is recognized there, I think I am safe in saying that the dissenting churches are not recognized in the table of precedence. There is a reason for that. In England they have a state church, and in Canada all churches are on a footing of equality. I have no hesitation at all in stating my convictions; convictions which are not mine alone, but which I share with, I am sure, every member of this House. I must say to the hon. gentleman that the task of framing a table of precedence which will give proper recognition to all churches is very difficult and is surrounded with serious intricacies. For instance, the question arises:	Which church
shall be given precedence over the other. The letter which was addressed to me some months ago by the Rev. Dr. Shaw, of Montreal, would indicate, if I understood aright the reverend gentleman, that precedence would be given to the Lutherans, because he said that if you look upon it from the point of view of antiquity, the Lutherans should come first. The Lutherans are a small body in Canada, and although I do

not know that the Rev. Dr. Shaw meant they should get precedence, at all events it was a suggestion which he submitted for our consideration. In the Roman Catholic Church and in the Church of England the dignitaries of these churches are permanent officials, but when you come to the Presbyterian Church, or the Methodist Church, or the Baptist Church, the difficulty is to recognize who are the proper dignitaries. Dignitaries in that sense they have none; they do not admit the term I believe, but they have certain officials. The Presbyterian Church has a moderator, which if he does not change annually at all events changes frequently. Who shall be placed on the table of precedence as representing the Presbyterian Church ? Should it be the moderator, whose tenure of office is comparatively brief. I understand that the Methodist body have certain functionaries who are also elected for a fixed term. As to the Baptists, I understand that their organization is absolutely democratic, that they recognize no such rule of precedence amongst themselves, and that thfly have no functionaries corresponding to those in the other churches. It would, therefore, be very difficult to place the representative of the Baptist Church upon the table of precedence.
I may say to my hon. friend that all these difficulties have been looked into by the government. At the time of the visit of the Prince of Wales we knew there were very serious complaints from some eminent divines of the disseneting churches in this and other cities. They complained very strongly that they had been ignored and had not been extended the courtesy which was extended to the dignitaries of the other churches. The government was not callous to such representations. A sub-committee of the council has been appointed to look into this matter and to prepare a report. It is now under investigation. I repeat to my hon. friend, that when we come to the point of framing a table of precedence such as we should have, the difficulty is almost insurmountable in finding a way to give precedence to those entitled to it. We are doing our best at the present time to overcome the difficulty. I would be very much obliged indeed if the mem* bers of this House would give us the benefit of their views as to what table of precedence we should recommend to His Majesty the King. At the present time we are very much in the dark, and we have not been able to arrive at a solution which we would like to recommend to the Imperial authorities. The matter shall not be forgotten by us. I hope, before this subject is dismissed, that members of the House, especially members who belong to the Dissenting churches will give us the benefit of their views on this subject so that we may be enabled to make representations to the proper authorities. I Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
agree with my hon. friend that the moment the parliament of Canada, represented by the government, makes proper representations to the Imperial authorities, these representations will be immediately acceded to.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If it be the case, as I understood the premier to say, that the Governor General received instructions as to precedence from the Imperial authorities, I have no doubt whatever that representation on the subject from any colonial authority would be received with attention, and that any wise suggestions coming from the Dominion of Canada or any other colony for overcoming the difficulty, would receive due weight. There is no doubt, from the information given us and from what we know, that this is a difficult question to settle and a delicate one to handle, especially in a country like ours, where many large dissenting denominations see other religious bodies given precedence over them. How would it do, in a democratic country like ours, to do away with all precedence in connection with these functions-to give no church any precedence over another, and thus do away with all ground for complaint ? That suggests itself to my mind as one way of overcoming the difficulty without doing injustice to anybody. The other suggestion made by the Rev. Mr. Shaw appears to have a good deal of merit in it, but there are objections to it which might be raised. I have no doubt that if it were known to the country that the government desired to consider this question, they would receive many suggestions from quarters from which they have not yet heard, and that after due consideration they would be able to evolve some scheme to meet the difficulty, which at present is a grievance, if not an offense, to some churches which are very numerous in certain sections of the country.


Mr. D. O. FRASER (Guysborough).: So far as I am concerned, I am rather democratic on this subject. In the first place, I wish to say, in reply to what the premier has said, that the office of moderator of the Presbyterian Church is continuous, just as the office of premier is, though the man who holds the office may change. For example, the man who is moderator this year may give place to another man next year, but the office is eternal, and Will be. For myself, if I had my own way, I would not have any precedence at all, either ecclesiastical or otherwise. There are of course certain persons, such as members of the government and members of parliament who represent the people, and if there is any distinction, and I do not ask for any, I can understand that it would only be right and just that places should be assigned to them, not as a matter of precedence, but simply to enable them to get their proper places. But in this democratic country I do not think we

want much of that kind of thing. I think : there are about thirty orders in the table of precedence. I have not looked over it lately, and do not intend to look at it again. An kon. MEMBER. Twenty-six.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Just imagine that in a democratic country-twenty-five personages or representatives of various communities who are ahead of you. I am not claiming the twenty-sixth place or the twenty-third, or any place; but 1 say it is absurd in a country like this. Personally I do not think the clergy need be recognized at all more than others. What I mean is this : X think they could be better employed in preparing men to be good citizens than in struggling for precedence over each other, and I think the democratic church to which I am attached is not making much of a cry about this matter. There is a way of settling the question which might not occur to the clergy, and that is the way they settled it in the British Columbia legislature the other day. But, seriously,
I think the churches should not say much on this subject. I can understand those who have dignitaries in their churches- Roman Catholics and Episcopalians-being interested in it; but if I might make a suggestion, I would say let the clergy imitate the men they represent, the humble fishermen of Galilee, and say : ' We are not after it at' all.' If they did that, they would show the greatest lesson of tolerance to the people of this country. My view is that we should become more democratic in this matter, and I would suggest to the premier that when the negotiations are on, he might strike off more than 334 per cent. If that is done, in a very few years we shall hear very little more about precedence in this country. If I remember rightly, Ur. Shaw proposes that precedence be given according to population. That is all nonsense. There are small bodies of people in this couutry who have shown themselves to be just as good citizens and as high in the scale as are the best. If you divide people in that way, you simply make precedence a question of majorities, and you shut out real merit and degrade the smaller denominations. Then, you would find this difficulty, that in one province precedence would be given to a man belonging to one denomination, and in another province to a man belonging to another. My suggestion to the premier is to recognize in this country very few of these positions at state functions. Let us all go to pay our respects, as we did when the Prince of Wales was here, feeling that character, and character alone, entitles a man to be there. Let us not be so anxious to set a man up in a high position just because he belongs to a particular church. These are my democratic views. Before I sit down, let me say, that I think this motion should not pass. It says : ' the word " seniority " to be interpreted by " territorial " area, or in some other appropriate
manner, and in other ways.' That would make it worse that it is at present.


Robert Laird Borden: Did I understand from the right lion. Prime Minister that the matter is now under the consideration of a sub-committee of the Privy Council ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps my hon. friend would let the motion stand for the present, having the right to renew it at a future time.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have asked my hon. friend to withdraw his motion.


Robert Laird Borden: I wish only to remark that my hon. friend from Guysbor-ough, in claiming for the members of this House a more exalted position than they possess at present, hardly exhibits that humble spirit of the Galilee fishermen which he commends to the clergy.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I do not want a high position, but if I did, I think the twenty-fifth or twenty-sixth place for the leader of the opposition would not be according to his dignity.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not going to raise that question, although I suppose I should be very much obliged to my hon. friend for raising it for me. I can well understand the difficulties that present themselves to the Committee of the Privy Council in dealing with this matter; and when the Prime Minister tells us that the government are dealing with it, I think it would perhaps be inadvisable for us to pass any motion in the House with regard to it at the present time. As the right hon. gentleman tells us that his government are dealing with it, it would be better not to pass any motion now on the subject. After the government have dealt with it, this House can, by means of an address or motion, express its opinion on the conclusions arrived at.


Samuel Hughes: In rising to withdraw this motion at the request of the Prime Minister, I may say that I am somewhat surprised that my hon. friend from Guysborougli (Mr. Fraser)-a gentleman learned in the law as well as in the academies-should seem unable to understand the English language. If he will read the last phrase attentively, he will find that it does not refer to ecclesiastical precedence, but to the very point which he himself has brought up, namely, to the place occupied by members of parliament in the general table of precedence. I trust therefore that my hon. friend will brush up his English grammer, and he will then probably revise his conclusions. Of course one can readily understand why the hon. gentleman should wish the table of precedence abolished, for if there were no such table there would * be no resisting his weight in the scramble i for a front place. The right hon. the First

Minister certainly misunderstood what I said if lie thought I said the Governor General had anything to do with establishing the table of precedence. That table, as are all the sources of honour, is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sovereign himself, and I merely mentioned the Governor General, in order to meet the' argument advanced, that this is a matter entirely within his purview. He has nothing to do with any matter except as advised by the Prime Minister of this country. I understand that in the past a claim for jurisdiction in this matter has been made upon behalf of one of our Governor Generals, and I understand that within a very recent period, a Governor General claimed the right to appoint his aide de camp as a personal matter. This claim, however, was entirely unconstitutional, and in any case it has but a remote bearing on the subject before the House. I have no doubt that if the right hon. the Prime Minister will consult the parties interested, he will arrive at a solution of the difficulty and be able to establish a proper basis of precedence. It has been suggested by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) that this whole table of precedence should be done away with. But I am satisfied that neither the Prime Minister nor the British government would request the Imperial authorities to withdraw precedence from those who now enjoy it. One of the Australia colonies once petitioned the British government to abolish the precedence given the clergy, and Her Majesty's government replied that such precedence could not be taken away from those who already held it. All the bishops then in existence should retain their precedence although it might not be continued to those subsequently appointed. Acting on the request of the First Minister and in view of the fact that this motion is receiving the consideration of a special committee of the Privy Council, I have much pleasure, with the permission of the House, in withdrawing it.
Motion withdrawn.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
Mr.   I@: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman to see that a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee is called at the earliest possible moment. We had a good deal of difficulty in obtaining regular meetings last session. There will be considerable work for this committee to do this session, and if it be desired that we shall not have a protracted session, it would be advisable to see that the chairman of that committee holds a regular meeting every week, it might be desirable to hold two or three meetings each week in order to expedite business. Last session we had some difficulty on account of


Samuel Hughes: the occasional absence of the chairman, and I would suggest that some gentleman should be selected to replace him when he is unavoidably absent.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I was only absent one day.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend may be right. I recollect that there was once some difficulty, and I thought it occurred more than once. If he is likely to be absent again, he might arrange to have some one take his place for the time being.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is here and will no doubt give effect to the suggestion of the hon. gentleman. As to whether the committee will meet once or twice a week, that is a matter for the committee itself to decide at its first meeting.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not suggesting that the House should deal with it, but was merely making suggestion to the chairman.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
Return showing the total number of officials and employees, temporary and permanent, of the Intercolonial Railway, and the total amount of salaries and wages payable to them on June 30th, 1886, and on December 31st, 1891.-Mr. Bell.
Return showing amount of the rebate paid on agricultural implements exported from Canada for the fiscal year ending June 30th, 1901, specifying amount paid to each firm.-Mr. Roche (Marquette), by Mr. Henderson.
Return showing the amount of money voted each year, including the present fiscal year, for the contemplated improvements of St. Andrews Rapids, Manitoba ; the amount spent so far out of these votes, and what for in each year ; reports of government engineers as to work done, delays, if any, and cause of the same ; copy of correspondence between engineers and contractors, and of both with the Department of Public Works in reference to the work done or to be done ; and a copy of contract entered into with the contractor or contractors.-Mr. LaRiviSre.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 5.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 27, 1902.
The SPEAKER took the cfiair at Three o'clock.

Mr.   R.@: HOLMES (West Huron) presented the first report of the Select Committee appointed to supervise the official report of

the Debates of the House. He moved that the report be concurred iu.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette) asked :: What valuation has been placed on a McCormick binder on which duty is paid when imported into Canada ; by the single binder and by the car load ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: I beg to say to the hon. gentleman, Mr. Roche (Marquette), not with a desire to evade his question, that it is not usual to disclose the prices at which goods are admitted to customs entry, the valuation at which goods are entered at the customs-house being usually treated as confidential in its nature. This is the rule that prevails in the department necessarily. The hon. gentleman will understand the spirit in which I give him the answer.


AMERICAN TUGS IN CANADIAN WATERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BENNETT-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1. Were any tugs of American register permitted to ply between Canadian ports during the season of navigation of 1901 ?
2.	If so, what tugs were so employed, and who were the owners of the same ?
3.	If such permission was so granted, is it intended to allow a similar indulgence to be exercised during the coming year ?
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: The answer furnished me by the department, Mr. Speaker, is as follows :-
The government is not aware that permission has been given to any tugs of American register to ply between Canadian ports during the season of navigation of 1901.
I may say that I think that answer is substantially correct, but lest there should be a misunderstanding of my utterance, I would say that I think special permission was given, not to a tug, but to a boat which had a pumping apparatus on board for loading gravel to take a load of gravel from a Canadian port to where a factory was being erected. Substantially the answer is correct.


BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT AMENDMENT.
Mr. LEMIEUX asked :: Has the attention of the government been drawn to the following resolution, moved on the 21st February last, in the legislature of
the province of Quebec :-
* Resolved, That in the opinion of this House, the revenues allowed the provinces by the British North America Act, are insufficient to enable them to meet the requirements of the
public service, and at the same time to afford the necessary aid to colonization, to agriculture, the development of our industries and the amelioration of our educational system ;
' That the interpretation given to various clauses of the constitution has endangered the existence of our local institutions ; and
That the government of Canada and those of the other provinces, should be invited to unite with the government of the province of Quebec, to request the parliament of the United Kingdom to so modify the Federal Act as to change the basis on which the federal subsidy is calculated ; to secure to the provinces the exclusive control of their public properties and of the railways within their limits, and to permit them to impose exportation dues on the products of their forests and their mines,. and to confer on the government of Great Britain the power of disallowing the provincial laws, now exercised by that of Canada.'
2.	Does the government propose to co-operate with the provinces in the sense indicated by this resolution ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The government have no official information upon this subject. We are aware, as everybody else, that such a resolution has been introduced into the local legislature, but we do not know what has become of it.


SUPERIOR COURT, QUEBEC.
Mr. LEMIEUX asked :: 1.	How many writs have been issued, and how many judgments have been rendered in the Supreme Court, in the different judicial districts of the province of Quebec, during the years 1900 and 1901 ?
2.	How many writs have been issued and judgments rendered in the judicial district of Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. C. Fitzpatrick).: I will have to ask my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) to apply to the persons who are in control of the statistics he requires. They are not under the control of the federal government at all.


KEEPER OF RED HORSE SHOAL LIGHT.
Mr. TAYLOR asked :: 1.	Has Mr. William Jackson, lighthouse-keeper of Red Horse shoal light, just west of Gananoque, been superannuated ?
2.	What salary was he paid as light-keeper ?
3.	Was he also paid a salary for setting out, taking up and caring for a number of buoys ?
4.	What salary was he paid for both services ?
5.	How many years was he in the service ?
6.	What superannuation does Mr. Jackson receive ?
7.	Was his superannuation allowance as fixed based on the salary he received for both services ?
8.	Was a letter received by the Department of Marine and Fisheries purporting to be signed by Mr. Jackson, asking to be superannuated ?
9.	Was he notified that his services as light-keeper were dispensed with, and that a Mr. Robert Chadwick had been appointed light-

keeper in his place, and requesting him to deliver up the lights to Mr. Chadwick ?
10.	Was Mr. Chadwick notified that he was appointed lighthouse-keeper and given instructions to call on Mr. Jackson and get the keys used and possession ?
11.	Did Mr. Jackson refuse to give up the light and notify the Department of Marine and Fisheries that he had not written any letter asking to be superannuated ?
12.	If so, what action did the government take to ascertain who forged the letter written to the department purporting to be signed by Mr. Jackson asking to be superannuated ?
13.	Has a Mr. Landon since been appointed as lighthouse-keeper to said light ?
14.	Was Mr. Chadwick notified that his appointment was cancelled ?	.
15.	If so, what were the reasons given ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 1.	Yes, on June 3, 1901. He was 71.
2.	$400 per year.
3.	He was allowed $50 per year for boat, fuel and buoy service (4 buoys).
4.	$450.
5.	21 years.
6.	He receives a pension of $168 per year.
7.	His allowance was based on his salary of $400 per year as light-keeper.
S. No such letter was received.
9.	Yes, on June 8 last. Letter mis-carried and was returned to the department. Remailed to correct address June 28.
10.	Yes, on June 8.
11.	No. Mr. Jackson wrote acknowledging receipt of letter of June 8 and asking to be allowed to remain until August 15, in order to take care of a garden he had planted.
12.	No forged letter was received.
13.	Yes, appointed on November 27, 1901, and took charge January 1, 1902 ; Mr. Jackson was retained and paid up to December 31 last.
14.	Yes. on December 5 last.
15.	No reasons were given-he was simply notified.


ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE-BOARD OF VISITORS.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria) asked :: 1.	Is the report of the Board of Visitors to the Royal Military College for the past year published ?
2.	If so, will the government lay it upon, the Table of the House ?
3.	If not published, will the government have it published and distributed ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden) :: 1.	and 2. No. It is not customary for the department to print this report.
3. There is no objection to lay a copy of it on the Table of the House if requested, after which it can be printed by order of the House, as has sometimes been done.


Mr. TAYLOR.: 


ORIENTAL IMMIGRATION-REPORT OF COMMISSION.
Mr. MORRISON asked :: 1.	Has the commission appointed last year to investigate matters touching Oriental immigration yet finished their labours and reported to the government ?
2.	If so, when will their report be printed and distributed ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The first part of the report of the commissioners concerning Chinese immigration has been received, and I will now place it on the Table of the House. The second part has not been received.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-PURCHASE OF TIES AND SLEEPERS.
Mr. BARKER asked :: 1.	How many railway ties or sleepers were purchased for the Intercolonial Railway in the autumn of 1900 and in the winter of 1901, between Metapedia and Moncton ?
2.	What proportion of such ties or sleepers were spruce, fir and poplar, respectively ?
3.	What prices were paid for each such description of tie or sleeper ?
4.	Were such ties or sleepers required to be in accordance with any and what specifications as to size, quality or otherwise ?
5.	Were tenders called for, if so, what notice by advertisement or otherwise was given to the public with respect thereto ?
6.	What amount was paid out by Inspector McMannus or other persons on behalf of the government or of the Inter colonial Railway for railway ties or sleepers during the month preceding the 7th day of November, 1900 ?
7.	(a.) Who were the contractors who supplied the railway ties or sleepors in the autumn of 1900 and the winter of 1901 between the points above mentioned ?
(b.) Did each of them have the privilege of delivering a percentage of spruce, fir and poplar, and if so, what percentage ? or was this pre-vilege given to some only, and if so, to whom ?
(c.) If this privilege was given to some only, and was not general, why was it not granted to all contractors 7
8.	(a.) Were such railway ties or sleepers paid for in cash or by cheque ?
(b.) What proportion was paid for by cheque and what proportion was paid for in cash ?
(c.) Is it the usual custom to pay for such supplies by cheque upon voucher, and if so, why was this custom departed from ?
9.	(a.) What special privileges, if any, were given to Mr. F. Curren in connection with contracts for supplying railway ties and sleepers in 1900 and 1901 ?
(b.) Were the same privileges extended to all other persons tendering for the supplying of railway ties or sleepers ?
10.	What amount of railway ties or sleepers purchased in 1900 and 1901, respectively, still remain on hand, and what proportion of each, respectively, have been used ?
11.	Of the ties and sleepers so purchased in the autumn of 1900 and the winter of 1901, what proportion were fir, spruce and poplar, respectively, and what proportion of each have been used, and what proportion still remain on hand ?
12.	Has the Department of Railways and

Canals a report on the quality and durability or value of spruce, fir and poplar ties respectively; if so, by whom was such report made, and when was it made ?
13.	Has any allegation or charge been made against Contractor McMannus in connection with the surveying of such ties or sleepers or any of them, and if so, has the same been investigated, and with what result ?
14.	Has any reinspection or examination of the said railway ties or sleepers been made during the summer of 1901, or at any other time, and if so, by whom and with what result, and have any and what proportion of such ties and sleepers been found to be under-sized or other wise unsuitable ?
15.	If any such reinspection has been made, when and by whom was it made, and at what ccst has it been completed, and if it has not been completed, is it still in progress, and if it is not in progress, why has it been discontinued ?
16.	If any of such ties or sleepers have been found to be below the required size or otherwise unsuitable, or not in accordance with the specification, if any, what steps have been taken to recover the value thereof from the contractor?
17.	Has any track foreman between Newcastle and Moncton reported that railway ties or sleepers delivered to him for use on the Intercolonial Railway were under size or otherwise unsuitable, and has he sent any specimen thereof to the chief engineer at Moncton for inspection ?
18.	What is the usual practice of the department with respect to the paying for ties or sleepers, and was this practice in any way departed from by payment in cash instead of by cheque or otherwise during the autumn of 1900 and the winter of 1901 ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: I think my hon. friend ought to move for a return in a matter of this kind. However, the information has been asked for, and as soon as it has been received from Moncton it will be given. Nevertheless it would be far better to move for a return. The question will be allowed to stand if the hon. gentleman wishes.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY LOCOMOTIVES.
Mr. BARKER asked :: 1.	Were the locomotives attached to trains 25, 26, 33 and 34, running between Halifax and Montreal, and mentioned in the official letter of the 14th January, 1902, from the manager to the superintendent of the Intercolonial Railway, of poor construction and poor steaming qualities, as there stated by the manager ?
2.	How long have those locomotives been in service, from whom, where and when were they bought, and at what price ?
3.	Were they constructed for the government ? If so, were the specifications prepared by the Railway Department ?
4.	Were the locomotives bought ready-made ? If so, upon whose recommendation, and under what inspection ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: The same answer may be given to that as to the last question.


PAPERS IN THE HUTTON-HU3HES MATTER.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria) asked :: 1.	Why was the Order of the House of last | session for the production of certain named
papers in the Hutton-Hughes matter not obeyed?
2.	Will the government bring down the papers at an early date this session ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: The order of the House referred to seems to have never reached the Department of Militia and Defence. I have a letter here from the Deputy Minister of Militia, in which he states that the Secretary of State never sent the order forward and that he is informed by the Department of the Secretary of State that the order was never received there. Now that attention has been called to it, I will see that the order is carried out.


THE PETERS TARGET AND THE MORRIS TUBE.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria) asked :: 1.	Has the government the report of a board of officers assembled at camp ' Carling's Heights,' London, Ontario, on the 24th day of June, 1901, by order of Lt.-Col. J. Peters, A.D.C., commanding second brigade, for the purpose of examining and reporting upon the working of the Peters' target ?
2.	What is the cost of one of the Peters' target ?
3.	How does the cost of the Peters' target compare with those used usually for the Morris tube ?
4.	What is the comparative cost of marking for each system ?
5.	How does the Peters' system compare for
(a)	rapidity of fire ; (b) absence of doubt re position of hits ; and (c) safety of markers, with the system for some time in use with the Morris tube ?
6.	Is the new style of ammunition for practicing target shooting found to be satisfactory ? What is the cost ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Eight dollars.
3.	The targets generally used for Morris tubes cost 25 cents a piece.
4.	Under the Peters target system no markers are used, the whole target vanishing if hit and no record is kept of the shots that fail to strike the target. Under the ordinary system markers are employed to mark whether the shots go high or low or left or right, thus enabling the firer to correct his aim and adjust his sights. The protection for the markers is obtained by means of iron shields which cost about $20 a piece; they are of a permanent nature and give complete safety to the markers when used under proper supervision.
5.	(a) The Peters' system is more rapid.
(b)	The Peters' system does not show the position of the hits, as the whole target disappears and stays down until released

by a spring manipulated from the firing point, it is impossible to tell when using it whether a shot is high or low. or left or right. The only way to obviate this would be by supplying a back ground with a marker to point out the hits, (e) Under proper supervision when the firing points are properly measured off there is no danger whatever.
6. The manufacture of the new ammunition has only been proceeded with in the last ten days. Preliminary experiments show that it is a much more satisfactory ammunition than the Morris tube with its ammunition. It is probable that minor defects may be discovered in it which will no doubt be remedied when discovered. The cost is about $1 per thousand.


MAIL CARRIER AT STE. HENEDINE.
Mr. MORIN asked :: 1.	Has Joseph CotS, mail carrier between the railway station of the Quebec central and the post office at Ste. Henedine, been replaced ?
2.	If so, by whom ?
3.	Were tenders called for before the renewal of the said contract ?
4.	If so, how many tenders did the department receive, and what are their respective amounts ?
5.	What sum does the new contractor receive ?
The ' POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Win. Mulock). The present contractor for carrying the mails between the railway station of the Quebec Central and the post office at Ste. Henedine is Joseph Corriveau, at the sum of $55 per annum. This service was let by public tender in 1897 and the contract awarded to Mr. CotC at $55 per annum, he being the lowest tenderer. The contract expired on the 30th September, 1901. The amount thereof being $55 per year, the Postmaster General is authorized by the statute to let the contract without inviting tenders, and a new contract was entered into with Mr. Joseph Corriveau at the sum named, being the amount of the lowest tender for the preceding four years.


CANADIAN MAILS VIA UNITED STATES PORTS.
Mr. KEMP asked :: What proportion of Canadian transatlantic mails are received and sent via United States ports ?	.
What arrangements are there for receiving and transferring same through United States territory, and the cost of such service [DOT]?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock) :: 1.	Proportion sent: About seven times as much mail matter is sent via the United States to the United Kingdom as is sent via Canada. The number of pounds during the six months ending the 30th November, 1901, being : Via Canadian ports, 30,418; via Hon. Mr. BORDEN (King's).
United States, 209,659. Proportion received is not recorded in this department.
2.	The arrangement for receiving and transferring Canadian mails through United States territory is in accordance with article 4 of the Universal Postal Union Convention signed at Washington, 15th June, 1897.
The cost of territorial conveyance is 2 francs per kilogram of letters and postcards, and 25 centimes per kilogram of other articles.
The Washington convention provides that transit charges should continue to be based on the statistics taken in May, 1896, and in accordance with this condition the following sums were paid for mails for the calendar year ending 31st December, 1900 :
-	Weight.	Territorial Transit Charges.	Maritime Transit Charges.Lbs.	$ cts.	8 cts.


To Great Britain ..: 213,520	10,718 94	24,892 97France	5,579	265 98	614 19
This department has no record of the weights or charges on matter despatched from transatlantic ports via the United States to Canada.


INVESTIGATION INTO RAILWAY FREIGHT RATES.
Albert Edward Kemp: Is the report of Professor Maclean, who was engaged by the Department of Railways and Canals for the purpose of investigating the question of freight rates, &e., complete ? If so, when will it be placed on the Table of the House ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: Mr. Maclean has made his report, and it will be laid on the Table at an early date..


SUBSIDIES PAID TO RAILWAYS.
Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	What railway subsidies. If any, have been paid since 30th June, 1901 ?
2.	To what railways have such subsidies, if any, been paid, and what amount has been paid to each such railway ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: The following railways have been paid subsidies since 30th June, 1901 :
1.	$1,895,747.
2.	Quebec Bridge Company, $167,430; Canadian Northern, $939,891 ; Atlantic and Lake Superior, $14,800; Montreal and Province Line, $58,560; York and Carleton, $18,336; Thousand Islands, $5,440; Canadian Pacific-Pipestone Branch, $67,200; Canadian Pacific-Crow's Nest Pass, $22,946; Inver-

ness and Richmond, $36,000; Algoma Central, $240,624; Lake Erie and Detroit River, $137,120; Atlantic and North-west (annual subsidy), $186,600. Total, $1,895,747.


EMPLOYMENT OF MR. SHEWEN, ST. JOHN, N. B.
Mr. WILMOT asked :: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. Israel Tarte) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Mr. Shewen's services were dispensed with on the 15th of October. He was reappointed at the beginning of this month. The reason his services were dispensed with and the reason lie was appointed again was to promote and maintain efficiency in the public service.


THE GRIEVANCES OF FISH CANNERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BELAND asked ;
1.	Has the attention of the government been called to an article which appeared in the Victoria 1 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 ; hut 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).: I may say that copies of the paper referred to have been received at the department. If the bon. gentleman will allow the question to stand, I will have answers made.


BELLEVILLE BOARD OF HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS.
Mr. PORTER asked :: 1.	Have any resignations, dismissals, appointments, or reappointments been made during the two years prior to 1st February, 1902, in the Board of Harbour Commissioners for the city of Belleville ?
2.	What person or persons have so resigned, been dismissed, appointed, or reappointed, with dates of such resignation, dismissal, appointment or reappointment ?
3.	What reason or reasons existed for such resignations, dismissals, appointments or reappointments ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 1. Yes.
2.	Mr. Thomas Hanley resigned his position to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on the 10th January, 1901, and the appointment of Mr. George Wallbridge was cancelled on the 19th April, 1901, by Order in Council.


Mr.  E. G.@: Sills, of Belleville, was appointed a harbour commissioner for Belleville on the 19th April, 1901, and Mr. T. S. Carman was also appointed a commissioner for said harbour on the same date.
3.	It was considered advisable in the interests of the harbour to cancel the appointment of Mr. Wallbridge and appoint another commissioner in his place, two commissioners having resigned, because they were dissatisfied with Mr. Wallbridge, and the difficulty there was in getting others to fill the vacancies while he remained commissioner.


Mr.  T. S.@: Carman was appointed to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr. Hanley, and Mr. E. G. Sills was appointed in the room of Mr. Wallbridge.


INSPECTION OF GRAIN AT MONTREAL.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria) asked :: 1.	Who inspects the grain arriving at Montreal ?
2.	Why is not the certificate of the western inspector accepted ?
3.	Is the government aware that dissatisfaction exists over the rulings, or rather overrulings, of other inspection by the Montreal Warehouse Company's inspector ?
4.	Has the government control of the Montreal inspector ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) :: 1.	The official grain inspector at Montreal is Hospice Labelle, who has several deputy inspectors under him. The official inspection is done by one or other of them. There is also a chief inspector, under the terms of the Act passed at last session, Mr. E. P. Craig, to whom matters can be referred in dispute, and whose decision is final under the terms of the Act.
2.	The certificate of the western inspector is accepted, unless a reinspection is called for by the owner of the grain. European buyers sometimes insist upon seaboard inspection, and in such cases the owners usually ask for reinspection at Montreal.
3.	The government has nd knowledge of dissatisfaction with reference to inspection by the Montreal Warehouse Company's inspector. The Montreal Warehouse Company's inspector, if such inspector exists, is not a government inspector. That warehouse is a private institution and cannot and does not inspect grain under the terms of the Inspection Act.
4.	Yes.


REPORTS PRESENTED.
[Stage Direction]
First part of the report of the commission appointed to investigate the question of
[Stage Direction]


Chinese immigration.-Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
The report of the Secretary of State for the year 1901.-Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick.

Mr. WILSON.: Before the Orders of the Hay are called I wish to ask for some returns. One is the correspondence between Mr. Devlin and the Department of the Interior, and the other is with reference to immigration. These are two returns which I would like to have, and I do not think it would be difficult to prepare them.


CATTLE GUARDS ON RAILWAYS.
Mr.  E. A.@: LANCASTER (Lincoln) moved second reading of Bill (No. 3) to amend the Railway Act. He said : I may say at the outset that this is neither a new question in the country nor does my amendment seek to create an entirely new state of the law. The history of the legislation in regard to cattle guards and fences on highway crossings is shortly this. Until the year 1888 the liability to erect and maintain cattle-guards and fences at highway crossings rested on the railway companies absolutely. In that year the Railway Act was consolidated, and this matter was dealt with in the consolidation, and dealt with in such a way that the liability was not only made not absolute, but was disposed of in such a way as to leave practically no liability at all. The enacting portion of the section of the Railway Act which was in force until 1888 was ns follows :
The company shall erect and maintain cattle-guards at all highway crossings suitable and sufficient to prevent cattle and other animals from getting on the railway.
Those who consider the question at all will know that these words constituted an absolute liability. In the consolidation of the Railway Act in 1S88, this section was changed by adding the following subsection :
Until such fences and cattle-guards are duly made and completed, and if after they are so made and completed they are duly maintained, the company shall be liable for all damages done by its trains and engines to cattle, horses and other animals, not wrongfully on the railway, and having got there in consequence of the omission to make, complete and maintain such fences and cattle-guards as aforesaid.
As soon as that was passed our courts began to decide that no company was liable because of the qualified liability expressed in that section, because any cattle that were wrongfully on the railway would be cattle that had no right to be on the highway-in other words, what are known as animals running at large. In the year 1890 the subsection which I have just read was struck out, and the following subsection substituted :


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: If the company omits to erect and complete as aforesaid any fence or cattle-guard, or if, after it is completed, the company neglects to maintain the same as aforesaid, and if, in consequence of such omission or neglect, any animal gets upon the railway from in adjoining place where, under the circumstances, it might properly be, then the company shall be liable to the owner of every such animal for all damages in respect of it caused by any of the company's trains or engines; and no animal allowed by law to run at large shall be held to be improperly on a place adjoining the railway merely for the reason that the owner or occupant of such place has not permitted it to be there.
This provision has the same effect on the farmers or other inhabitants of the country as the amendment of 1888, and our courts have been obliged to decide that an animal is not in a place where it might properly be if it is running at large and therefore gets on the railway. It at once strikes anybody who gives any consideration to the matter that there is no need of a cattle-guard at all if the animal is not running at large, because if it is in the control of a human being it will not get on the railway, even if there is no cattle-guards there, unless there is contributory negligence on the part of the person in charge of the animal. The question is a very simple one. Why are cattle-guards required ? Not to prevent human beings from driving their cattle or allowing their cattle to get on to a line of railway, but to prevent cattle, which are not within immediate control, from doing so. No cattle-guards would be required were the animals always under control. Until 1888 the law stood as I am trying to make it now. Until 1888 railway companies were obliged to provide and maintain these cattle-guards, and it is only since all the larger railway companies secured their charters, under the law as it stood in 1888, and as I seek to make it now, that they got this amendment passed, first in 1888 and then in 1890, taking away the rights our people enjoyed when the railways were built. We often hear the plea put forth, especially by railway companies, that we must not do anything to interfere with vested rights. Well, Mr. Speaker, this happens to be a case in which the farmer clearly has been deprived of a vested right. The condition of affairs which existed, when our farmers were compelled, sometimes against their will, to give up portions of their land, to allow their farms to be cut up and dangerous conditions established, for the benefit of railway companies, has since been changed, and changed without their consent, and it is only right that this old condition of things should be restored. All the petitions that are flooding this House this session, although the session is still very young, show clearly that the farmers never gave their consent to this protection being taken away from them which existed in 1888. Innumerable petitions have been laid on the Table asking us to amend the

law and put it back where it was, as I am now seeking to do.
It is an essential principle of every law that it should be effective, that it should accomplish something which requires to be accomplished. Otherwise it is merely a travesty. I would like any hon. member to explain what common sense there is in an Act which provides that a railway company or anybody else must do a certain thing and then fails to provide a penalty for not doing it, except in the event of certain conditions which could not possibly apply.
The only reason that can be urged against the amendment I propose is that perhaps it is hard on the railway companies. I submit that there is nothing in that contention, but that I am simply putting things back as they were in 1888 when these railway companies constructed their lines.
Another argument used is that if this amendment were to pass, the farmers would allow their animals to run at large in order to get compensation, in case of accident, from the railway companies. But that is a very poor and a very unfounded opinion of the whole of our farming community. Our farmers do not want their animals to run at large, but in spite of every precaution they will sometimes get beyond control. A fence may be blown down by the wind or some stranger may leave a gate open or something else may be done, for which the farmer cannot be held responsible, and an animal get out on to the highway. On such a case it is only fair to oblige the railway companies to take the precautions against these cattle straying on to their lines, which they were obliged to do some twelve or thirteen years ago. Besides there is a section of the Railway Act which I am not touching, and which prevents a farmer recovering damages for the injury or destruction of any animal that occurs on the highway where it is crossed by a railway. If an animal is killed or injured at the point of intersection, its owner cannot recover any damages, and I submit that while we retain that section in our law, every farmer will be interested in seeing that his stock do not escape on to the highway, lest they might meet with an accident at these points of intersection.
The argument that to allow the owners of cattle to recover damages from the railway companies will be an inducement to our farmers to let their stock run loose, answers itself. If you pass the Bill which I now urge upon you, you prevent animals from meeting the train except at the point of intersection of the railway and the highway. For, the effect would be to make it necessary for the railway company to make proper cattle-guards. It may be said this is enacted in the present law. But there is no use in enacting that the railway shall do a given thing, if you do not punish them for not doing it. The only way to compel them to put cattle-guards at the highway 15*
crossing is to hold them liable in thewcase of injury to cattle that had strayed upon their track from the highway, no matter how they got across the cattle-guard. If this Act is passed and railways provide guards which the cattle cannot cross from the highway, the only place at which an animal could be upon the track would be at the point of intersection of the track with the highway. If you give effect to the argument of the railways that under such a law as I propose farmers may grow careless and allow their animals to run on a highway, thus causing the risk of the trains being thrown off the track, you must also allow for the fact that under this Bill, the only point at which a train would meet an animal would be at the point of intersection. On the contrary, as things are at present, the train is liable to meet that animal at any point of the road from terminus to terminus. Thus, the very argumeut advanced in behalf of the railways, if it be advanced in this House answers itself, and the fact is emphasized that the railways would be protected by this amendment in the very way they want to be protected. Now, the law of this country on this subject is very different from that of any other country where the circumstances are at all similar. All the states of the Union, so far as I have been able to ascertain-and I have learned about a majority of them-have laws, which, though worded more or less differently are, in effect, the same as our law was before 188S, and as I am now seeking to make it. Obviously, the reason is just what I have already said, that, if you do not make the liability absolute you cannot expect that cattle-guards will be provided that will afford proper protection. Now, to state a case-innumerable cases have occurred-let us suppose that an animal goes away without the consent of the owner and gets upon the highway. The law being what it is, we might assume that the railway company has not provided proper cattle-guards. Railway companies do not do anything they are not obliged to do unless there is some clear advantage to be gained, and I think it would be fair to assume that proper cattle-guards have not been made. But let us suppose that there are effective cattle-guards. The animal goes upon the highway until it reaches the railway. But, the cattle-guards being there, it will be discouraged from seeking to move along the track. It is in danger while it is at the point of intersection, but it is encouraged to continue on the highway Where there is no danger. That is the only risk the owner of the animal ought to run. Of course, under municipal law, the owner is liable to have the animal impounded, and all the steps taken that are necessary for the protection of the inhabitants of the locality. But, so far as the railway is concerned, I submit that the only risk that the owner ought to

run is, if tlie animal though encouraged to remain on the highway is injured while it is on the track. But if the proper cattle-guards are not provided, the animal is induced to turn upon the track, which, to the animal does not appear more dangerous than the highway. The owner ought not to he called upon to bear that risk. Therefore, I submit, that the Bill which X have proposed is one which ought to meet with the approval of the House. Now, it has been said in the country, during the discussion of this subject within the last year, that such a law as I propose might have the effect of reducing the rate of speed of trains, that, with cattle-guards constructed at the intersection of every highway the speed of trains could not be maintained. In the first place, I do not think that the fact that a train may be prevented from travelling as fast as it did five or six years ago ought, of itself, to be a reason why an injustice should be done to the inhabitants of the country who are obliged, in carrying on their affairs, to keep animals that may go upon the railway tracks if there are no cattle-guards. But, in the second place, from inquiries I have made, I find that this is after all, merely a question of expense. I understand that a cattle-guard can be made that will prevent cattle straying upon the railway and still will not interfere with the solidity of the track, if there is a little masonry about it. We know that the railways have to use a good deal of masonry in their works all over their lines, for culverts, bridges, and so on. If it be true that the railway must run its trains a little slower, or else put a little more expense in the construction of cattle-guards, I submit that that ought not to be regarded as an effective objection to the amendment I propose. The railways ought to bear that additional expense in order that the people of the country may be properly protected. I do not wish to trouble the House at greater length or to repeat in other forms -what I have, already said. I understand that several other gentlemen wish to speak on the Bill. But, in closing, I submit that in the true interests of the country this amendment ought to pass, and these provisions be restored to the place in the statute law which they had in 1888, in order that the people may have the protection which I have endeavoured in my humble way to explain, and to which they are entitled.


Mr. PHILIPPE DEMERS (St. John and' Iberville).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the hon. member (Mr. Lancaster), who has just spoken, upon his initiative and perseverance. Although last year, the efforts of the hon. member were not rewarded with success, still this year, again, he comes forward with the same Bill. But happily for him, this question comes up before the House instead of before the Mr. LANCASTER.
Railway Committee. Owing to the several petitions that have been presented in support of the contemplated legislation, it will be no hard task for the House to take a decision. As remarked by the hon. gentleman, it is not the intention to impose new obligations upon railway companies, but merely to come back to the state of things that existed up to the year 1888, and was amended by the statute of 1890. The change brought about by the amendment of 1S90 was quite radical ; for, up to that date, railway companies were held responsible by the courts, whenever cattle wandered and loitered on the highway, near the railway tracks, which were not then provided with cattle-guards. After that amendment had been passed, legislation changed very rapidly, in the several provinces of the Dominion ; but in the province of Quebec, notwithstanding this amendment of 1890, the Court of Appeal decided that railway companies were responsible for all damages to cattle wandering upon the railway tracks, through neglect of providing proper cattle guards. Later on though, in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company vs. Cross, the Court of Appeal adopted the jurisprudence of the other provinces, so that at this moment, railway companies are perfectly free not to comply with the laws of the land. They are incurring no risks ; for, when, I ask, are those companies to be held responsible to the public, if not in cases where, through their neglect of providing proper cattle-guards, cattle will wander on the railway tracks, causing thereby damages ? It is the only case which might occur, and railway companies are not responsible.
So, that since 1890, we have a law on the matter, which serves no useful purpose. There is no question of saddling railway companies with new obligations, but merely of giving a fresh sanction to the law already existing. I do not believe that railway companies would suffer from this Bill.
In the constituency which I represent here, several farmers have suffered from accidents to their cattle, which were due to the absence of cattle-guards. When appealed to, the railway companies have haughtily declined remedying grievances. They would simply laugh at the petitions sent by several municipal councils, requesting them to erect cattle-guards.
Accidents will occur, so long as we shall not have placed a sanction upon the obligation which has always existed for railway companies to maintain cattle-guards at railway crossings. The House, I hope, will adopt the legislation proposed by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), and will thus give sanction to a law meant to protect the interests of farmers, which would be greatly imperilled were we to reject the Bill now before us.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: The Bill introduced by my hon. friend is a very important one, and interests a large section of the people of this country. At the same time we know from experience that the question is a complicated one, and requires a good deal of consideration before we venture on an amendment. I do not see any objection to allowing the second reading of this Bill and referring it to the committee, so that it may be carefully considered, and that we may hear the parties interested. You will admit, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure the House will agree with me, that one is scarcely able to form an opinion with regard to the different points involved in this matter from the speeches that are made on the floor of the House; one is much better able to form such an opinion when he hears the matter discussed before a committee, and has an opportunity of asking questions and getting information with regard to the various points that have been, I admit, very ably dealt with by the hon. gentleman who has spoken on the Bill to-day. So far as I am personally concerned I will agree to the second reading of the Bill, with the understanding that it be referred to the Railway Committee for consideration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: While the usual custom has been to refer railway and telegraph Bills to the Railway Committee, and no doubt the minister who has made that proposal is in harmony with that custom, still I do not see any strong grounds for referring this Bill to the Railway Committee. It is an ordinary public Bill, and as ordinary public Bills, after their second reading, are usually dealt with in this House by being referred to the Committee of the Whole House, and as this is only a commonplace Bill of one clause, therefore I think the best place to consider it is in Committee of this Whole House. There is one reason why 1 would object to refer it to the Railway Committee, and that is the history of what has taken place in that Railway Committee. I do not desire to reflect in any way on that committee, yet I cannot Tefrain from thinking over a large number of important Bills that go to that Railway Committee and are killed there, and never find their way back to this House, Bills that are usually in the public interest. It seems to be the graveyard of very many important Bills that are in the interest of the public.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Will my hon. friend allow me ? I think perhaps there is a good deal in the statement that many Bills are killed in the Railway Committee, but I do not think there are nearly so many as are killed in this House when they are considered in Committee of the Whole. I know that many amendments of great importance have been carried through the House after
having been reported by the committee, but in my experience of twenty-two years in parliament I cannot remember any Bill having been introduced by a private member and become law without having been considered by a committee of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am speaking with reference to ordinary Bills.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am speaking of public Bills.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Bills promoted by private corporations come back from the committee all right, but public Bills relating to the rights of individuals as against railways


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Public Bills I mean.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My experience has been that these Bills sent to the committee rarely if ever come back to this House reported from that committee. Therefore, I am opposed to the reference on that ground. Under the old law people knew what their rights were in the event of any accident occurring through defective cattle-guards, but under new law those rights were taken away. The history of railways in this country has been a constant infringement upon those rights. But as soon as the law was amended, new conditions were introduced, and now it is something that every person is not conversant with. If there were a great deal of intricate legislation about this Bill that it requires an expert to understand, there might be a strong reason for sending it to the Railway Committee. But I do not think there is any good reason for sending this Bill to the Railway Committee.
Now arguments have been suggested and facts presented to show that one reason why this amendment to the law was made was because the old cattle-guards were dangerous. AYhen this Bill was being considered I asked the question :	Will the hon. member who holds that contention give us any data of the number of accidents which have taken place on account of these excavations for cattle-guards, and no cases were given, and I believe it was never attempted to prove to the House or to the committee that any considerable number of accidents occurred on account of these excavations for the old kind of cattle-guards. Therefore, if that be so, and I believe it is, I do not think the argument should hold good or be of any value. It is a fact that every farmer in the country knows, that where there is a railway crossing his farm the cattle-guard is of no value whatever as regards keeping cattle off the railway track. They will walk over it winter or summer as unconcernedly as if there was no cattle-guard there at all. They are only pieces of bent iron put so closely together that cattle can walk over them almost as on a floor. Well, the railway companies do not care, because there is a law which prevents cattle run-

ning at large within half a mile of a railway, and if the farmer suffers loss from his cattle running on the public highways within half a mile, he is liable to be prosecuted by law for allowing them to do so. If his cattle get off on the railway and are killed, he has no redress whatever, and has to sustain all the loss. I do not think it was ever intended that should be so, and in my judgment it is very unfair. There was very little discussion when this amendment was made to the law.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Does this propose to remedy that defect, so that when cattle on a railway crossing are killed the owner shall have indemnity ?	.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know what the hon. gentleman means by a railway crossing.


John Graham Haggart: Where the highway crosses a railway.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, not at all, it is not intended that this is of any value to the farmer as enabling him to get compensation for cattle killed on the highway, that is his own lookout; but it is when cattle-guards are so defective as to allow cattle to travel over them and get on the railway ground or tracks. That is all the Bill is intended to do, that is what the old law did do, and that is what the farmers are deprived of to-day.- When their cattle travel as they do right over the cattle-guards on to the railway grounds and are killed, they have no redress whatever, and have to sustain the entire loss. I was going on to say that when this law was amended there was very little discussion on it. In fact it was explained by an expert railway lawyer, I think very adroitly, and information was kept in the dark which, if that committee had possessed, they never would have allowed that amendment to pass. But they did not see the aim of it, and they innocently allowed the amendment to pass, believing that it was for some good purpose. But when they found out afterwards that the cattle-guards were of no value in keeping the cattle off the track, and that when the cattle went over these guards and got killed the owner had no redress, and when a case came to be decided in the courts, then they saw where the law was defective and very naturally a clamour arose for an amendment. Once or twice before an amendment was introduced to put the law back to where it was before, but through adverse influences the Bill did not become law, it was killed. It was sent first to the Railway Committee and then to a sub-committee of the Railway Committee, and through some accident or otherwise-I do not know what it was-it was killed. I, as one member of that sub-committee, know that a notice of the meeting of that sub-committee did not reach me until after the sub-committee had considered Mr. SPROULE.
the Bill and reported it back to the main committee, reporting against the Bill. But whether that was the result of accident or design I am not prepared to say. At any rate, the Bill did not come back to the Railway Committee as having received its support, and consequently it was lost.
Now, we want to discuss it in this House for two reasons. The first reason is to let the country know what the representatives of the people are doing or what they are disposed to do to protect the innocent farmer whose property was expropriated from him in the first instance in addition to which the dangers were increased on his own property by virtue of the operations of the railway corporations, although they placed these cattle-guards on their line. If it were publicly known throughout the country that the representatives of the people are opposed to this, I think they would be reminded of it when they went back for re-election. Therefore, we want to discuss the measure as generally as possible. We want to ascertain the sentiment of the House on the question so as to see whether hon. gentlemen think that they are in duty bound to do what is right towards the farmers of the country, or whether they consider it to be their duty to look after the interests of the railway corporations.


Samuel Hughes: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule), be good enough to explain the difference between the law as it now stands in relation to the farmer and the Bill as proposed ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Under the old law, if the railway company did not keep up an efficient railway guard, sufficient to keep cattle from getting on the track, and cattle went on the track and were killed, the railway company were liable for damages. To-day, all they are obliged to do is to keep up cattle-guards, not necessarily efficient ones, not ones to prevent cattle from getting on the track, and if a farmer allows his cattle to run and they get on the track and are killed he has no redress because the railway company have maintained the cattle-guard, whether an efficient one or not. Under the proposed amendment to the law if the railway company maintain an inefficient guard they are not liable for damages and the farmer has to suffer. Under the old law if the cattle-guard was not an efficient one the railway company were liable. We desire to discuss this question as generally as possible and if there are any reasonable objections against the Bill we wish to know them so as we may consider them. As the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) said, the farmer had the first rights in the country, his property was expropriated from him against his will, and if you expropriate property, as a principle, it is held that you must give compensation. Although you have given moderately fair compensation for the property, there are other rights which

the farmer should enjoy. A corporation to which the country has given the right t:o invade the right of domain of the private individual should not be allowed to bring about other conditions which make it more onerous for the farmer to carry on his daily work, more expensive, or more dangerous or more likely to incur loss to him. Now, if a railway corporation expropriate property they should not be allowed to run their railway over a farm and allow it to remain in such a way that the farmer's stock can at any time get on the track and be destroyed and he have no redress from the railway company. Unless they take every reasonable precaution to prevent the destruction of stock as a result of getting on the track, a railway company ought to be held responsible for the damage and be obliged to pay it. Therefore, this Bill, in my judgment, ought to become law, and I am most strongly opposed to sending it to the Railway Committee. I want to say one word in regard to another amendment made to the law a few years ago. That was an amendment which made the farmer liable if he allowed his cattle to run at large on the highway within half a mile of a railway. I always thought that a very unfair provision of the law and a very unreasonable one, and I hold that opinion still. In many parts of the country the farmers find their very best grazing ground on the highway.
A farmer should not be deprived of the advantage of grazing his cattle on the highway, where there is better pasture perhaps than in his own fields. In Vermont he has the right to the use of the highway to the centre of the highway. Our law is somewhat different here, but still, by common consent, farmers have been allowed to take advantage of the highways and to graze their cattle on them, but, if a farmer allows his cattle to graze on the highway within half a mile of a railway he is liable to have them impounded and to be mulcted in damages. I think this wrong and I hold that such a law should be amended.


Mr. A. T. THOMPSON (Haldimand and Monck).: Mr. Speaker, I understood the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) to say that he would move that this Bill be referred to the Railway Committee of this Chamber, and when he does so I propose to support that motion. I feel it due to myself to give the House my reason for so-doing. I represent an almost purely agricultural riding, and there I practice my profession of the law, so that I think I am in some position to take an intelligent interest in the discussion now before the House. I wish to say that I have come to the conclusion that the farmers have in this matter a most substantial grievance and I believe that I voice the opinion of the majority of the members of this House when I say that before this session is over a substantial remedy they must have for that substantial grievance. Now, the point between the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) and the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Sutherland) is as to where this matter shall be fought out. It would seem to me undoubtedly a better course to fight it out in the Railway Committee than to deal with it here. Now, Sir, my reason for saying that will be apparent to almost every hon. member of this House even before I state it. Our chief functions are undoubtedly legislative, but in order to enact good laws there should be thorough previous investigation, and we have in the committee a chance of examining witnesses, of hearing experts on both sides and of gaining the best information possible. It is for this reason that I would like to see the matter investigated in the Railway Committee. As I have said before I am heartily in sympathy with the farmers in this matter and should it go to tlie committee I shall use every endeavour in my power to see that this Bill does not have one more tombstone put up to it in that committee, which has been called the graveyard. It seems to me that the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has, to use a common phrase, been playing somewhat to the gallery in this matter. He has talked so much about wanting to go on record on the floor of this House. The insinuation is patent that we want to sneak off to a committee where there is no ' Hansard ' reporter in order that we may do there what we would be ashamed to do on the floor of this House.
I resent any such insinuation as that. I believe that the average member of this House is an intelligent man and that he is equally willing to do his duty in the committee or in the House. The hon. gentleman said that we must discuss the Bill here so that we might put ourselves on record. We have to discuss it here when it is reported from the Railway Committee, so that it seems to me that we can put ourselves on record by referring the Bill just as well as we can now by discussing it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It may never be reported from the Railway Committee. That is the trouble.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: The chances are this year that when this matter goes to the committee, owing to the sentiment in regard to it in the House, it will come back and we will have an opportunity of going on record. I know very well that ' trimmer ' is a name that no man would like to have forced upon him, but in my honest opinion compromise is in many cases honourable, and in the best interests of this country. We have not only the farmers to consider but also the travelling public, and let me say to my hon. friend from East Grey that the farmers form a very large per cent of the travelling public. Let us go to the committee and find out what is best to be

done and then as honourable men do It. In conclusion may I be allowed to quote a very apt French proverb : ' 11 faut mettre d'e l'eau dans son vin.'


Mr. JOSEPH BRUNET (St. James, Montreal).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment moved by the hon. member is in several respects, similar to the Railway Act in force in the province of Quebec. Should there be any amendments required, then I think it would be better to refer the Bill to the Railway Committee, for further consideration.


Mr. F. B. WADE (Annapolis).: There are three parties interested in the subject matter of this Bill. One is the farmer, another the railway company, and the third is the travelling public.


Mr. COWAN.: What about the cow ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Fletcher Bath Wade: We will leave the cow with the hon. member. As between the farmer and the railway company my sympathy is entirely with the farmer, but we have to consider the interests of the travelling public as well as the interests of the other parties, and we should be very careful before we make any changes in the provisions of the law as it exists to-day. There is a mistaken idea in the minds of many hon. gentlemen here with regard to this law. I think it can be demonstrated beyond peradventure that the law as it exists to-day is really the ^*at ll;ls been in force in Canada since 1857. It is all very well to work up our sympathies in favour of the farmer-and of the cow as one hon. gentleman suggests- and I dare say that some hon. gentlemen Jnaj sympathize with the railway company but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the welfare of the travelling public should have our sympathy also. The object of the present law has been-and it has been so declared by the decisions of our courts- to impose a mutual burden upon the railways and upon the farmers whose cattle must be kept off the track in order that no danger may arise to the passengers and ern-ployees on railway trains. That is the object ot the law, and that principle we must keep m view when we' are discussing this question. It is in my opinion a question which ought to go before the Railway Committee, and there be thoroughly discussed. The provisions of this Bill with regard to cattle-guards is one of very great importance. lo-day, upon the continent of America, there are not two railways which are using the same kind of cattle-guard ; in fact upon different divisions of the same railway ln 9anS,da, different kinds of guards are used. The old pit-guard has been put aside and every imaginable device has been tried by the different railways in order to protect their line. It is as much in the interest of the railway company as it is in the interest


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: of the general public that the very best and most effective kind of cattle-guard should be adopted. It does seem to me that it would be highly proper that a commission should be appointed for the purpose of inquiring into and deciding upon what is the most effective cattle-guard, and having decided authoritatively on that, we should put the law in force and see that it is used on every railway. If that were done good would be accomplished, but I doubt if any good can be achieved by our saying that an effective cattle-guard should be used, in view of the fact that different kinds of guards, all supposed to be effective, are being used now throughout the Dominion. Some of these guards which are the most effectual for the purpose of keeping cattle off the railway are the guards which are most complained of by the farmers because they are liable to injure the cattle. I therefore think that it is most desirable that this whole question should be discussed before the Railway Committee, notwithstanding the remarks made against that body by the hon. gentleman for Grey (Mr. Sproule). If some valuable recommendation could be made to this House, I believe the government would be only too glad to adopt the suggestion and to take such steps as will enable them to decide which is the best kind of cattle-guard that should be used throughout Canada.


Samuel Hughes: There is another very important interest that has not been referred to in this case. We have heard of the interests of the lawyers, the farmers, the general public, the railway companies and the cattle, but nobody seems to have thought of mentioning the necessity for protecting the lives of the men engaged in operating the trains. I have been at the burial of too many of the engineers and firemen and brakesmen of the town in which I live, to let a Bill of this kind pass without seeing that the interests of thiS body are properly safeguarded. I have as much sympathy with the farmer as any man in this House, but I could give you instance after instance where train hands were killed on account of some careless people allowing their cattle to roam on the track at night.


An hon. MEMBER.: Not farmers.


Samuel Hughes: You rarely find a farmer's cow running at large. It is usually the cow of some poor loafer around the village which is let loose to get some pasture at night, and the next thing you know is that the fireman and the engineer are piled up in the debris and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property destroyed. I am anxious that every railway company should be compelled to maintain the very best kind of cattle-guard, but I believe also that there should be safeguards provided for the men who are obliged to travel on the railways, and who are at the

mercy of some careless fellow who turns his cow loose at night.


Mr. G. A. STEPHENS (Kent).: In the interest of the farmer, in the interest of the travelling public and in the interest of all concerned, I believe that the pit-guard is the only proper guard to use. I believe that the pit-guard would be entirely used by the railway companies but for the expense that it entails upon them. It is certainly the safest guard for a train to pass over if it is properly built, and it is certainly the best guard for keeping cattle and other stock off the track. I also believe that the floor of this House is the proper place to argue this Bill out.


Mr. M. AVERY (Addington).: I have had the honour to receive a petition from my riding praying that some legislation be passed by this House in reference to this question. We have three railways in the riding of Addington, and there is a universal demand in the district for improvement in the railway culverts. If it be in the interest of railways to make better guards I would like to know why the railway companies have not done so. In the district which I represent a great many cattle have been killed on the railways, and the farmers have had no redress. I will give you an instance. A drover was taking cattle to the railway station to be shipped, and in spite of his efforts the cattle got on the track because the cattle-guard was not sufficient to keep them back. A train came along and killed half of the cattle, but the poor man had no recourse in law against the company, because the law said that the cattle-guard was a safe one. It is neither just nor right to allow the railway companies to build such cattle-guards which are not safe for the farmers, and not safe for the people using the highway or travelling on the railroad.
I was on a train myself one day when cattle got on the track and nearly the whole train was ditched, but fortunately no one was killed. I would point out to the House that what is protection for the travelling public is protection for the railway companies and also for the farmers. The sooner we pass a law here forcing the railways to build proper cattle guards, the better satisfied will be the people of the country. Canada has helped railroads enough to ask them to make this small return towards the protection of our people, and I trust that a measure calculated to safeguard the rights of the public in this regard will soon become law.


Hon. HAVID TISDALE (South Norfolk).: I do not propose to discuss the principle of this Bill, but I wish to correct some statements which have been made in this House with reference to the Railway Committee. Some hon. gentlemen made remarks in reference to the Railway Committee which were both uncalled for and unjustified. I can remember all the changes in the Rail-1
way Act since it was consolidated in 1888. I remember that in 1888 when the Hon. Mr. Pope was Minister of Railways, some two or three weeks were given to a careful consideration of the Act in the Railway Committee, and afterwards a very thorough discussion on the Bill took place in this House. After that the only important railway Bills which I remember were the one introduced by the hon. member for Lincoln, and a drainage measure which indirectly affected the railways. With these two exceptions all the Bills relating to railways went to the Railway Committee and were considered by that committee. I wish to make this correction, because when an hon. gentleman assumes the responsibility of reflecting upon the Railway Committee, he should inform himself of the true action of that committee. This matter is one of importance to the farmers, and I also represent an agricultural constituency, and it is not fair to the other members of the Railway Committee that the hon. gentleman should speak of it as a dangerous place to which to send any important Bill. I say that the Railway Committee, irrespective of which party is in power, is a most competent, faithful, honest and wise tribunal. I have been a member of that committee for fifteen years. I have taken a great deal of pride in it, and I am glad to say that I know of no tribunal in the world which I would rather trust than that committee. It is not pleasant for me to have to say some of these things, but I do not propose to allow these reflections on the Railway Committee to go on the journals of this House without making my protest against them. I want to congratulate the acting Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) on having to-day pursued the policy which has always been pursued by the most illustrious leaders on both sides of the House. I want to congratulate him, because since his party has been in power, I have sometimes had to find fault with the minister. I have always contended that so long as we have a Railway Act, the responsible minister should always take charge of such matters and see that fair play is given to all parties; and the acting Minister of Railways to-day, in my opinion took the proper course, and ought to be supported in it. With regard to the grievance which has been mentioned, there is certainly a strong desire to agree upon some methods for meeting a very complicated case, where important and conflicting interests are concerned; and I am satisfied that it is desired on both sides of the House to deal with the matter in all seriousness. I do not approve of sending a Bill of this kind to a sub-committee. I opposed doing so last year although I sat on the special committee. I think we should send it to a committee that will give the time and patience necessary to understand the case, and then the House will accept its decision.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask the hon. member what became of the Bills for the protection of railway employees that went to that committee and never came back, the Bill respecting ditches and water courses, which also went there and never came back, and the cattle-guard Bill ?


David Tisdale: The Bill relating to railway employees is not of the same character as this, though not less important, and I have no doubt it received due consideration. I understand that the matter it dealt with was adjusted by some arrangement brought about by the government between the railway employees and the companies.


Robert Holmes: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the very discussion which has taken place, and which is only in its incipient stages, shows the wisdom of referring this Bill to the Railway Committee. There is apparently as much diversity of opinion on this question as there is on the question of prohibition. The Bill is important, affecting as it does several interests. There is a strong grievance on the side of the farmers, and there may be questions of rights on the side of the railways and the public. In legislation of this kind it has always seemed to me that the wise course to pursue is to refer it to the committee which is supposed to deal with such matters. Therefore, I think this Bill should go before the Railway Committee. While I agree with some of its provisions, there is something to be said on both sides, and it should be threshed out there.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: A Bill similar to the one now before the House was introduced by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) last session, and was sent to the Railway Committee. The Railway Committee referred it to a subcommittee, aud, if I remember rightly, the hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) was on that committee, but did not put in an appearance, or if he did he voted against the Bill.


David Tisdale: I was at every meeting of that committee.


Jabel Robinson: Well, that sub-committee took no action in the matter, and the present Bill may be treated in the same way. This is a very important question. The farmers have rights, and we are bound to make the railways and all other classes respect those rights, and I think it is time that this very important question was decided upon. This House has been flooded with resolutions asking it to take action, and if you were to have all the committees you please, you would not be any better informed on the question than you are to-day. Every man in this House knows all* about a cattle-guard. I Hon. Mr. TISDALE.
do not think any more light can be thrown upon the question than we all have this evening; and, I for one, think the question should be brought before this House here and now.


Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).: I rise to say, in the first place, that I am opposed to the suggestion that this measure should be referred to any committee other than the Committee of the Whole House, the representatives of the people. I do not think we can get any better light upon it than can be shed by the experience and knowledge of the various members of this House. It is not a new question, nor is the amendment a new one. It was brought to the attention of the House last session, and I think I am right in assuming that every hou. member of this House has given it careful attention in the meantime. Now, I hardly anticipated that I should find the hon. member from Victoria (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) together on any question. I regret that the hon. member for Victoria is not in the good company we usually find him. The argument of these two hon. gentlemen is the same :	The object of the law is the
safety of the public and the safety of the railway employees. Why, Mr. Speaker, these hon. gentlemen cannot have been giving careful consideration to the amendment which has been proposed or the speeches which have been made this afternoon, or else they would know that it is for the greater safety of railway employees and the greater safety of the public as well as the protection of the farmer that the amendment of the hon. member for Lincoln is introduced.
The Bill does not propose to deal with the danger of a collision at the intersection of a highway and a railway, but we have the additional danger that along every mile of a railway, where proper cattle-guards do not exist, there is the probability that cattle may be encountered at any point, and it is that danger this Bill is intended to guard against. ' Can it be said that parliament has fairly and intelligently sought to protect the safety of the public, when during twelve or fourteen years, although there is a law on the statute-books requiring railways to provide cattle-guards and proper fences to keep cattle from going on their tracks, these companies have been allowed to systematically disregard that law, with the result that all over the country we have had disasters to cattle and the owners of the cattle have had to bear the loss ?
The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) has spoken out in a manner that does him credit. He spoke of the stand he was taking to have justice done our farming community, but judging from what passed last session I have not much hope for this measure should the course, which he recommends, be pursued this year. He

says we can go to a special committee and get tlie evidence. But what better evidence can we get than that of our senses ? What witnesses do we want to call 1 Is it not evident that if this is to be a short session and this Bill is referred to a committee, it will not get beyond that committee. Justice delayed, Mr. Speaker, is injustice, and surely .justice has been long enough delayed in this matter. If I understand the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) aright, he made a suggestion in the same line. He said that all parties interested could be heard before the committee. Well, I submit that all the parties interested can be heard when we deliberate the question in this House. What are we but the representatives, not alone of the farmers and the railway companies, but of the entire people of Canada; and the representatives of the people on the floor of this House can just as well, as honesty, and as faithfully represent the various interests concerned as could any witnesses before a committee.
I. think I am right in saying that although the two great parties in this Dominion have vied with each other in professing their readiness to protect the interests of the farmers, the discussion this afternoon has shown that some hou. members at least have not paid that attention to what is actually before the House in the agricultural interests which we would expect from their utterances on the public platform.
This point requires to be kept clearly in mind that the law which requires that cattle shall not be allowed to run at large within half a mile of the intersections of the railway track with the public highway, is not interfered with in any way by the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Lincoln. The courts have pointed out that the object of this provision was to make it in the interests of the farmers to keep their cattle at home. Under it if an animal is killed or injured, which has violated that section, the owner cannot recover damages, and hon. gentlemen may advance that as an argument against the amendment of the hon. member for Lincoln. I submit, however, that every argument which has been used by the legislature and the public to have the public interests safeguarded should be exerted in favour of this amendment. If we have truly the interests of the travelling public at heart, we should enact some measure similar to the one now before the House. Why so ? Because if you take the point of intersection between a highway and a railway alone, you will find that there is no temptation for cattle to loiter at that spot, though of course it is not impossible that an animal might by chance stray to that point and get caught there. But if that is possible, it would only happen at very long intervals. But when the law provides that the railway companies shall put up cattle-guards and fences along their lines sufficient to keep cattle
from straying on to the track and when we find this law completely disregarded-when we find a nice green sward along the railway lines offering tempting pastures to cattle-we have there not only a danger to the cattle but also a danger to the travelling public, which danger is vastly increased by practically allowing the railways to- dispense with cattle-guards at the points of intersection, since they are not liable to any penalty for accidents to animals occurring at these points.
The hon. member's amendment does not deal with the difficult question as to what kind of cattle-guards there should be, because that would lead to endless litigation and difficulty, but seeks a straight declaration that where cattle stray on to a railway track from the highway, by reason of the omission or neglect of the company to maintain cattle-guards or fences at the highway crossing, the company shall be responsible. The courts have decided that if an animal strays from the highway to the railway track, although there may be no cattle-guard or no fenee at the intersection between the highway and the railway, yet the owner of the animal must bear the loss, and we wish to make it the interest of the railway companies to guard against such accidents, which it is not their interest to do now. At present they insist on breaking the law by not putting up cattle-guards, simply because the courts have held that they are not responsible. Well, we can remedy that difficulty. We are all-powerful here. Do lion, gentlemen of the House of Commons think it fair that, because a farmer's cattle accidentally break out of their pasture during a wind storm, stray upon the highway and are thence tempted upon the railway and destroyed, it may be, a mile or a mile and half from the point of intersection, there shall be no compensation for the farmer ? Is it fair that by being given freedom from responsibility the railway company shall be tempted to disregard its plain duty ? If we say that the paramount consideration is the protection of railway passengers, I submit that it is in the interests of these very people that the proposition of the hon. member for Lincoln should pass. I submit also that it is not in the interests of the people that this Bill should go to a committee again, having regard to the experience we had last session.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Peter Macdonald, East Huron).: A large number of farmers throughout the length and breadth of this country have suffered heavy losses through the defective condition of the cattle-guards on railways. The old pit-guard was much more effective in preventing cattle wandering upon the railway than those that are now in use in some parts of the country. In fact, if the railway cattle-guards in other sections are built as they are in my riding then, there are no cattle-guards but

are absolutely useless. A number of my constituents have lost their valuable cattle and horses through there being, practically speaking no obstruction placed in the way of the animals wandering upon the track. The difficulty does not always arise, in fact it does not frequently arise, through cattle being driven along the highway and across the railway track. But, sometimes, as every hon. gentleman knows, cattle are pasturing in a field adjoining a side line. During a windy night the fence may blow down, or the cattle may find a panel which falls without much resistance, and thus they wander down the side line to the track. If it is in the middle of summer, and the feed is better on the railway than on the highway, as it often is, the cattle naturally wander along the railway and so are liable to be killed by passing trains. If there were efficient obstructions, the cattle would continue on the highway and would thus avoid danger. Let me quote one instance to show the absolute' uselessness for the purpose intended of the cattle-guards. One evening a number of cattle, owned by one of my con-stitutents about four miles from the town in which I live, broke down some fences and wandered down to the side line till they came to the crossing. The feed being better on the railway, they wandered upon the track. The train passed, I think in the night, and killed four head of cattle. The carcasses were thrown from the track to the side of the road. The owner had to take them from where they lay to bury them in another place. He hitched up his horse to a wagon and actually drove over the cattle-guard with his horse and wagon to the place where the carcasses were, and then drove back, without difficulty, over the cattle-guard. This shows that there was no obstruction thrown in the way of the cattle wandering on the railway. In this way, large numbers of cattle and horses are killed. Two other constituents of mine lost valuable horses in the same way, and still another lost three or four head of cattle. When we consider the number of valuable animals killed in this way, we see that this is an exceedingly serious and important question. It is for us to consider the best means to be adopted to secure better protection for the owners of cattle. I do not say that this Bill will accomplish all that is necessary; nor do I say that the railways are guilty of neglect. But, if proper cattle-guards cannot be constructed now, some railway men ought to apply their wits to the inventing of a cattle-guard which will prevent animals wandering on the railway. The old pit-guards were the ones in use in our neighbourhood some years ago. But all these guards have been filled up solid to the top, and a few longi-tudinous strips, triangular in form, have been placed where the pit formerly was. But sheep and cattle can pass over them without any difficulty whatever. It is Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.
the duty of parliament to consider this question, not from a party standpoint-for there is no partyism in it-and do the best we can to secure safety for cattle and horses that wander on the highway through no fault of the owner. Whether it is considered in Committee of the Whole or in the Railway Committee matters not, if we do our duty. I rose merely to tell the House of the state of affairs in my own neighbourhood and to show the ineffectiveness of the cattle-guards in use there.


Mr. D. K. ERB (South Perth).: I understand, that this Bill, if enacted, would make the railway corporations liable for loss through cattle being killed on the railway track, if those cattle stray upon the railway from the highway. That being the case, I am thoroughly in sympathy with the Bill. I believe, that, if such a Bill were enacted, the railway companies would soon devise some means by which the cattle would be prevented from straying on the track from the highway, yet which would not interfere with them running a train. Some years ago, a law was passed prohibiting cattle roaming at large within half a mile of the railway track. Was that law passed in the interests of the farmers ? Was there any great demand on the part of the farmers for such a law ? If cattle got out and got on the railway track and were killed, farmers had no compensation before that law was passed and they have had no compensation since. The argument used at that time was that the law was necessary for the protection of railways as cattle going upon the track might be the means of derailing trains and so causing expense to the railway company. If that is the object to be attained, I think the railway companies should have no objection whatever to the Bill now before us. If there is danger of trains being derailed at the highway crossings by cattle going upon the track, that danger must be greatly increased, if the cattle go, as they do now, on the property of the railway, and are free to wander upon the track where they will. It would be in the interest of the railway, as it would be in the interest of the railway employees and of the general tra velling public, to pass such a law as is here proposed. If this law were passed, efficient cattle-guards would be provided, and danger of this kind would be restricted to the points where the railways and the highways cross.


Mr. A. B. INGRAM (East Elgin).: I would not rise to discuss the merits of this Bill were it not that we may be called upon to vote as to whether the Bill should be sent to the Railway Committee or not. I am one of those who desire to weigh carefully the interests of the farmers as to how this Bill may affect them; but I am not blind to the fact that this country is an agricultural country, and that our railways may be more patronized by agriculturists
3i

than perhaps by any other class of the community. That being the case, while I recognize that the farmers located along the lines of railway may suffer to some extent through accidents caused by the railways. 1 also remember that the greater portiou of the agriculturists of this country are not located on a railway, but are travellers over railways; and we have to consider whether we may not do an injustice to the greater number of farmers by legislating so as to make our roadbeds perhaps insecure or unsafe to the travelling public, and by that means perhaps causing a greater sacrifice of life on our railways than takes place at present. Now, I remember that on the old organized railways of this country, they had the kind of cattle-guard that was built when the railways were first constructed, known as the pit cattle-guard. The hon. gentleman who moved this Bill to-day, throughout his speech, spoke as if that was the kind of cattle-guard he suggested, and the only difference is that he requires it to be constructed of masonry instead of square timber, as it had been by the old organized railways.
Now what has been the history of the railway companies with respect to cattle-guards, wooden culverts and wooden bridges in this country ? At first they were wooden culverts built across the railways; but the railway companies, finding they had to compete with those of the United States found it necessary to introduce engines of greater power and of greater speed in order to compete with American railways, and for that purpose they filled up the culverts, the cattle guards, and rebuilt their wooden bridges with iron. I remember distinctly, by practical experience, that the cattle-guards in those days did not prevent stock from passing on the railways, frequently stock was killed by passing over the cattle-guards on to the railways. When my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) says that the railway companies do not care when stock passes over the railway, it is idle rot to talk like that. The hon. gentleman regretted very much that cattle were not allowed to run on the highway. Then my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) who, according to the ' Farmer's Sun,' has paid a great deal of attention to this Bill, and who ought to be prepared, if any man in this House can be, to enlighten us on the subject of this legislation, makes an erroneous statement. He says that cattle do not linger around the intersection of a railway crossing. Well, I want to tell my hon. friend as a practical railway man that if there is one place more than another where stock running at large are likely to linger, it is at the intersection of a railway crossing. There is no question about it, and every practical railway man will tell you so. Then again it has been suggested by one hon. member in this House that the
pit is a proper guard to have. The hon. gentleman has never had any experience ; he does not know.
I am prepared to say, perhaps having had as much experience in the matter as any other hon. gentleman in this House, that X am not in a position to say to-day that this Bill should be referred to a Committee of the Whole House. X have not the information in my possession which would justify me in voting against the Bill, or which would justify me in voting for it. But I do not want to leave myself open to the charge by any man who chooses to come into my constituency and tell the farming community that simply because I voted against this Bill being considered in Committee of the Whole I am therefore opposed to legislation of this character. I do not want to put myself in such a position, and I believe many other hon. gentlemen in this House wish to avoid putting themselves in that position. I go further, and say that railway companies in this country are just as eager as any hon. gentleman in this House to prevent loss of life on the railways and to prevent loss of stock to the farmers on the railways. Until we have an opportunity of sending for witnesses and securing statistics which would justify us in amending this legislation, I say it becomes us to go slowly. Now when this Bill was before the House last session there were no petitions asking us to pass this legislation. Since then a strong agitation has sprung up throughout the country, and many petitions have been sent to this parliament. Hon. gentlemen are well aware that the public are alive to this question. That being the case, is it not our duty, in the interest of the public and in the interest of all parties, carefully to weigh this question ? The only way we can do so is by securing statistics to ascertain whether more stock is killed in winter or more stock is killed in summer, and what are the causes of these accidents. My hon. friend from Huron said that stock may break out through fences. Why, Sir, will the hon. gentleman pretend to say that it is only when they break through fences that cattle get on railway crossings over the intersections with the highway ? That is rarely the case. Frequently in the dry season of summer the fences are burnt by reason of sparks from the engine setting the grass on fire along the railway, and frequently this allows the stock to get out on the railway. Will any one pretend to sav that you require a cattle-guard wherever cattle break out through the fences alongside the railway ? Certainly not. No legislation we can pass in this House will prevent accidents occurring on railways by reason of broken fences caused in the way I have described.
Now, farmers are interested in more ways than one in this question. They are interested as travellers and they are interest-

ed as owners of stock, and we ought to weigh these separate interests carefully. When my hon. friend, my colleague from West Elgin (Mr. Robinson), says that we are bound to consider the interest of the farmer, I say we are bound to consider his interests both as a traveller and as an owner of stock. I have just as much right to consider his interest as a traveller as I have to consider his interest as an owner of stock that may be killed through carelessness, or perhaps by accident. When this Bill comes up before the Railway Committee, if it ever does, I shall be glad to do my best to give it full consideration, and to procure information that will enable us to come to a right decision. I may add that if it comes to a question in this House as to whether we shall send this Bill to the Railway Committee, I have no hesitation in saying that I will support the Minister of Marine and Fisheries who has proposed to send it to that committee.


Mr. LEIGHTON MCCARTHY (North Simcoe).: I have just one word to say as to the aspect which this debate has taken. No matter how much we may be in favour of the Bill of the hon. member for Lincoln, it now seems to me that each member of the Railway Committee who sits in this House must consider whether he is prepared to vote want of confidence in himself. The discussion has been going on and arguments have been advanced to show that we ought to consider this Bill in Committee of the Whole House because the Railway Committee would not treat it fairly. The man who takes that view must be prepared to support a resolution which says that the Railway Committee does not do its duty. Are we, members of this House who are members of that committee, going to stigmatize ourselves by voting that this Bill should be considered now because we will not give it proper consideration when it is sent before us in the Railway Committee in the ordinary course. That is the first proposition that presented itself to me, but these hon. gentlemen who think that it should be considered now as a safeguard to the farming community seem to forget, while perhaps they will be earning a certain amount of eclat before the pnb-lic by making it appear that they are protecting the interests of the public, that in future a fashion may be created which I am sure every hon. gentleman will condemn. If it is to be said that a Bill may be more easily put through in this way, shall we not have every day persons representing different interests in the community coming here and saying : This is a very important Bill; it will not receive proper consideration before the Railway Committee and therefore we want it considered now. I have always thought, and I think the members of this House will agree with me, that the more important a Bill is the more im-Mr. INGRAM.
portant it is that it should be sent to the Railway Committee in order that all the matters connected with it may be discussed and all views heard. Therefore, I am preprepared to support the resolution of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Sutherland), sending it to the Railway Committee, in order that we may have a full and free discussion there by the representatives of all parties, and further than that, I am not prepared to vote a want of confidence in myself as a member of that committee.


Mr. ROBERT JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that there is no better place in which to thresh out this measure than right here in Committee of the Whole. This Bill has been before the Railway Committee on several former occasions. I remember that for four or five years back there is not a county in our section of the country that has not petitioned this government regarding cattle-guards. This is not a new thing, and I am of the opinion that every hon. member here, representing a county, is a good judge as to whether the county which he represents desires a change in the law relating to cattle-guards or not. It is not for us as members of the House of Commons to dictate to the railway companies as to what kind of cattle-guards they should adopt. I do not think they would pay any attention to us if we did dictate to them on this point. It seems to me that a cattle-guard should be sufficient to keep stock off the tracks. It is for the railway companies, in my opinion, to settle for themselves as to what sort of cattle-guards they should build, and not for us to dictate to them, provided that they adopt a safe cattle-guard. I was surprised at the speech of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes). He tried to make it appear that there was more danger to the travelling public by having a good cattle-guard to prevent cattle from getting on the track than by having a poor cattle-guard that would permit cattle to get on the track. That is his argument. There are four rods of the highway clear between the fences where cattle may get upon the railway track, but if there is an insufficient cattle-guard cattle might occupy the track for the two or three miles that intervenes between the two guards. I can only say that I have had the honour of being a member of the county council for some years and that every year they have petitioned this government asking for more protection in the shape of better cattle-guards.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Mr. Speaker, before this question is put, I desire to say a few more words in regard to this matter.


Peter Macdonald: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) cannot speak a second time. He has already exhausted his time.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This is my motion.


Peter Macdonald: He might speak in a discussion but not on the Orders of the Day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland) moved that the Bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Railways and Canals and Telegraph Lines.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: Mr. Speaker, before that motion is put, I desire to say a few words, and with all due respect to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Sutherland), to contend in this House that we are not doing- the right thing by sending this Bill to any committee other than the Committee of the Whole House. I have listened very earnestly and very carefully to all that has been said as to the reasons of hon. gentlemen for desiring this Bill to go to the Railway Committee, and I have been struck most forcibly by one thing. The hon. gentlemen who want this Bill to go to the Railway Committee, not always for the same reason, but for some reason or other, seem to have doubts as to whether the Bill is a proper one to pass-not putting it any stronger than that, not contending that the amendment which I have been seeking to bring into force is a bad one or one that should not be passed, and paying that compliment to those hon. gentlemen who have spoken in favour of the Bill, and who are not prepared to say that it is not a good measure, but at the same time there may be reasons which may come out in the Railway Committee. I have asked hon. gentlemen in this House to tell me whether the Railway Committee of this House is the body that is entrusted with the enactment of public laws or whether the whole House is the body that is so trusted by the people. I would ask hon. gentlemen like the hon. member from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram), who says that he does not want to be placed in the position of voting against this Bill or voting for it in the House, to ask himself whether he did hot put himself in that position when he accepted the nomination and was elected to serve the people in parliament.


Andrew B. Ingram: May I be permitted to answer the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) ? If this Bill is referred to the Railway Committee, the Railway Committee deals with it, and if this House is dissatisfied with the report of the Railway Committee, this House has the power to change it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then, I say, still speaking of the hon. member for East Elgin, that he is deputing to the Railway Committee the duty which was placed upon him and not upon the Railway Committee when he accepted a position of trust as a member of parliament. The members of the Railway Committee do not constitute all the members of the House of Commons. It is the duty of every member of the House of Commons to pass upon the general laws of the country and if they are going to pass upon the general laws they cannot properly pass upon them unless they have an opportunity of discussing them. Why should we exclude any member of the House of Commons from the discussion of a Bill relating to the general public laws of the Dominion ? The position that these hon. gentlemen place themselves in seems to me to be nothing else than that they are willing to have a committee of perhaps half the House of Commons-not exactly but perhaps not more than half-to pass upon a general matter that is to be discussed, upon all the details and then the members of the House of Commons who are not members of the Railway Committee are to come in upon the third reading of the Bill and ask themselves whether the judgment of the Railway Committee was right or wrong. How can they reasonably do so if they are not members of the Railway Committee ? Therefore, the members of the whole House of Commons must pass upon the Bill themselves and judge whether it is a right and proper law to pass. In regard to what was also said about the kind of cattle-guards, I have found out-perhaps every hon. member of the House has not-but they can easily find out that the people's railway, the railway the people undertake to operate, provides proper cattle-guards.
When we find on the Peoples' Railway, the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island Railway-that proper cattle-guards are constructed, the other railway companies have a very poor case when they come to parliament to ask for any less liability to be placed upon them. During my trip through the maritime provinces last summer-which I flo not pretend to say I took solely for the purpose of investigating cattle-guards-I did not forget my duties to my constituency nor to the whole of Canada, so far as I have a duty to the whole of Canada, and I made particular inquiries as to the kind of cattle-guards on the Peoples' Railway and as to the effect of them. I was told by the trainmen on the Intercolonial Railway that they did not know of a case where a cow had been on that railway between the highway crossings. That I think disposes of the matter pretty effectively. These crossings where the highway and the railway intersect will have more or less cattle collected about them ; but the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) has forgotten that the amendment I am seeking to incorporate in the law will prevent these cattle from being killed anywhere else but on the highway crossings, and will not permit of them getting anywhere else than on the part of the line which is both a railway and a highway. I shall not detain the House longer, but I do say to the minister (Hon. Mr. Sutherland)

480.
that I regret exceedingly that I am not able to agree to refer this matter again to the Railway Committee. We had our experience last year of the Railway Committee, and at last we could only get together twelve members to consider this Bill. Reference has been made to-day by some members to this Bill getting a full discussion last year. WTliy, the committee was only half an hour in session, and the reason was that the House and other committees were meeting at the same time and the members had to attend to other duties. No special committee that this House can appoint, nor could the Railway Committee itself give one-quarter the attention to this Bill that the House has given to it to-day. We have to-day discussed it pro and con, and having considered what is right and what is wrong, we will not be able to accomplish anything more in the interests of justice than we are able to accomplish at this very time and in this House. Having a sincere desire to do nothing but what is just; having no idea of trying to prevent railways from getting justice, but having a strong idea that the farmers should be protected against injustice, I feel it my duty, with all respect to the minister (Hon. Mr. Sutherland), to ask the House to vote down the suggestion that it should go to a committee and to say that the Bill shall be disposed of in the House. I really believe that if the Bill is referred to a committee it will never again come back to the House this session, and we shall have to begin all over again next session.


Mr.  L. P.@: DEMERS (St. John and Iberville) (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, The question now before us is not so complicated as has been contended by many of the hon. gentlemen who have taken part in the debate. What we have to decide is, whether we are going, by an amendment to allow the courts to alter their decisions. *We are asked to give by an amendment to the law, our sanction to a provision which is already on our statute book. Under these statutes railway companies have to erect cattle guards at railway crossings ; but through an amendment introduced in 1890, the law was changed and railway companies are no longer responsible before the courts when cattle are permitted to be at large upon any highway.
The question before us, is whether we are going to amend the law, and whether we are to allow the courts to condemn railway companies which do not comply with the law. That is the whole question in a nutshell. The question is not whether cattle guards are to be built , in such or such a way ; but whether a company which does not construct any such cattle guards or does build them in a defective way-which comes to the same thing-will be held liable for damages. Is it a question which requires to be submitted to the consideration of the railway committee ? By no means. It is a most simple question. I would have voted Mr. LANCASTER.
this year for the motion of the horn Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Sutherland) as I did last year, had I not been since educated upon all the quibbles and technicalities of parliamentary procedure. Last year this question was referred to a railway committee and no more was heard about it. I wish to wash my hands of the whole affair, and I decline to assume any responsibility in connection with any change that the Act may have to undergo this year.
House divided on the motion (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) :
YEAS :
Messieurs
Angers,	Lavergne,
Baker,	LeBlanc,
Beith,	Lemieux,
Beland,	Lewis,
Brook,	Logan,
Brunet,	Macdonald,
Calvert,	Mackie,
Carbonneau,	McCarthy,
Champagne,	McColl,
Christie,	McCool,
Copp,	McCreary,
Costigan,	McEwen,
Cowan,	McGugan,
Delisle,	Mclsaac,
Demers (Levis),	McLennan,
Dugas,	Madore,
Dyment,	Malouin,
Earle,	Marcil (Bagot),
Erb,	Marcil (Bonaventure).
Fielding,	Matheson,
Fitzpatrick,	Maxwell,
Flint,	Morrison,
Fortier,	Mulock,
Fraser,	Oliver,
Gallilier,	Osier,
Gauvreau,	Paterson,
Geoffrion,	Proulx,
German,	Reid (Restigouche),
Gibson,	Riley,
Gilmour,	Rosamond,
Girard,	Ross (Ontario),
Gould	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
Guthrie,	Rousseau,
Haggart,	Russell,
Harwood,	Schell,
Heyd,	Sutherland (Essex),
Holmes,	Sutherland (Oxford),
Horsey,	Talbot,
Hughes (King's,P.E. I.),	Tarte,
Hyman,	Thompson,
Ingram,	Tisdale,
Johnston (Lambton),	Tolmie,
Kendall,	Wade,
Lang,	Wilmot,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Wright.-90.
NAYS :	
Messieurs	
Alcorn,	Lennox,
Avery,	Leonard,
Bell,	McCormick,
Blain,	McGowan,
Borden (Halifax),	McIntosh,
Boyd,	McLeod,
Broder,	Monk,
Bruce,	Morin,

Porter,
Puttee,
Richardson, Robinson (Elgin), Roche (Marquette), Ross (Rimouski), Sherritt,
Simmons,
Smith (Wentworth), Sproule,
Stephens,
Taylor,
Tolton,
Turgeon,
Vrooman,
Ward,
Wilson.-50.


MONTREAL TURNPIKE COMMISSION.
Mr. J. E. LEONARD (Laval).: (Translation) moves for an Order of the House for a statement showing- in detail
1.	The total amount of revenue received by the Montreal Turnpike Commissioners during the year 1901.
2.	The total amount of the expenditure of said Commissioners during the same year.
3.	The amount spent by said Commissioners for the maintenance of the toll-gates during the same year.
4.	The amount paid to each Commissioner, under any heading whatsoever, during the same year.
5.	The amount of each contract and the name of each contractor during the same year.
6.	If each one of the said contracts was awarded by public tender, and in what newspapers and in what manner was such publicity secured.
7.	The exact amount, in capital as well as m interest, actually due, on debentures, to the government, as well as the amounts paid out by the said Commissioners of 1896.
8.	A detailed statement of the asset's of said Commission.
My first object, Mr. Speaker, in asking for a return of the detailed accounts of the Montreal Turnpike Trust is to call the attention of the government to the very bad state of the roads under the control of that commission. Within the last few years, that is to say since the coming into	power of	the	Liberal	party, themajority of the members of this commission have been appointed by the government. The commissioners did not hesitate for a moment to raise the tolls which farmers residing in the vicinity of Montreal have to pay. Those farmers have to go to the market twice a week. On account of the little space afforded them on the Bonse-cours market,	they	are obliged, in order	to get a	good	place to	pay underthe	new tariff a	toll of	ten cents
in the evening and ten cents when they come back next day. When the Turnpike Trust thus raised the tolls, we hoped that they would at least take the means to improve the roads in the vicinity of the com-16
Calvin,
Carscallen,
Clancy,
Clare,
Cochrane,
Culbert,
Demers (St. John), Ganong,
Hackett,
Halliday,
Henderson,
Johnston (Cardwell), Kendrey,
Kidd,
Lancaster,
Lavell,
Legris,


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
mercial metropolis of Canada, Montreal. On the contrary, the Turnpike Trust did nothing of the kind, as is well known by all those who live in the vicinity of Montreal and use these roads. I, for one, know something about it, as every day in the year, 1 have occasion to judge how these roads are kept, and I am able to state that they are in a state that defies description, so much so that newspapers took the matter in hand. For instance ' La Presse ' on the 22nd February instant, published the followinglines :
The toll roads on the island of Montreal are under the control of three companies :	The
Turnpike Commission, the St. Michel Roads Company, and the Dorval Roads Company.
The roads of the two last named companies are in a fairly good state ; those of the Turnpike Trust, in which the people of Montreal are more directly interested, are in a deplorable state, summer and winter.
At present these roads are impassable, they are dangerous ; accidents are numerous, and a cabman is never sure to get out of these roads safely and with his rig intact. Those of our readers who have not seen these roads will be able to form an estimate of them by the cut we publish on page 13 of our paper.
' La Presse ' had in fact, a very comical picture of those roads.
And yet, the tolls are high enough to ensure the maintenance of these roads, and the authorities should force the Turnpike Trust to fulfil their obligations towards the people.
Its members are appointed by the government, and the public hold the government responsible for all the vexations and losses caused by the fact that these roads are the worst of all the district.
The above is from ' La Presse,' and every one knows that this paper has no desire to create trouble for the Liberal government.
On the other hand ' La Patrie ' published last Monday an article showing that these roads are impassable. Here is the article of ' La Patrie.'
We draw the attention of Mr. Galibert to the bad state of the road, particularly between Montreal and La Longue Pointe.
The Turnpike Trust must not only collect tolls ; they are obliged also to keep in good condition the roads under their control. They have an inspector who must have forgotten to make his tour of inspection, and it is high time his attention were called to the complaints that are heard from the public. Now, the road between Montreal and La Longue Pointe is only a single track road and it is in an awful state. The public have a right, however, to insist upon a double track road and one that is properly maintained. We are sure Mr. Gaii-bert will give stringent orders to the inspector of the Turnpike Trust.
As I said a little while ago, the government who appoints the members of that com-mision and to whom there is due a very high amount on which no interest has been paid for many many years back, the government, I say, has a right to inquire thorougli-

[Stage Direction]
lv into tlie management of the affairs of the Turnpike Trust. Not only the government, hut the public, who are paying the piper, have the right to know what is going on in this trust. Let me tell you that presently no one has the right or if that right exists, we are prevented from exercising it, and no one, as I have said, is allowed to see what is going on.
My object, in moving for the return, is to give publicity to the affairs of that trust, to call the attention of the government to then-management, and after that to ask the ministers if they could not see their way clear to lighten the heavy burden under which the farming community is being crushed. The farmers in the counties of Terrebonne, L'Assomption, Two Mountains, Jacques Cartier and Laval, which latter county I have the honour to represent in this House, are obliged to pass twice a week through these toll-gates, where they have to pay a very high toll and also upon the bridges in the vicinity of Montreal. If a farmer crosses the toll-gate at half-past eleven at night he has to pay ten cents and he comes back after midnight, say forty minutes later, he is obliged to pay another ten cents. I was told by a farmer that he had paid $75 in tolls upon the bridges, and passing through the toll-gates.
The farmers in the vicinity of Montreal sell all their products on the markets of that city. They are not exporters and they also have the right-whether they sent here Conservative members or Liberal members- to ask the government to look into the management of the affairs of that trust composed of parties appointed by the Dominion and Provincial governments.
In concluding these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I hope that this government at the hands of whom the farmers of Canada have already received so much protection, will not be less generous to those residing around Montreal in the counties of Jacques Cartier, Laval, L'Assomption and Terrebonne, and that they will come to their assistance.
I move this motion, seconded by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk).
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are we going to get no statement from the government in regard to this matter ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I thought my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) was going to address the House or otherwise I would have risen to say that so far as the motion is concerned there can be no objection to it. Any papers in the hands of the government or which can be reasonably obtained will be brought down. I think there is some misapprehension as to the position of the government in this matter. It will be readily understood that under ordinary circumstances it is not the business of the Dominion government to maintain roads in any part of the country. That is a municipal or provincial matter as the case may be. The only interest the gov-Mr. LEONARD.
eminent of Canada has in this is as the holders of certain bonds. If my hon. friend (Mr. Leonard) is under the impression that the government is getting revenue from these bonds and thus oppressing the people,
I am able to assure him that he is mistaken. We hold these bonds in consequence of transactions of older times. Under an arrangement made some years ago, this debt was reduced and a basis of adjustment was reached which the government of the day were led to believe would enable the Turnpike trust to pay interest on the reduced sum. For a year or so some interest was paid but later on no interest was paid. Whether or not this is the fault of the commissioners is a proper subject for inquiry, and if any representations on that question are made it will be our duty to look into the matter very carefully. All I can at present say is, that the government are receiving no revenue. We have a large amount of Dominion money invested, and though a reduction was made some years ago in the hope of receiving some satisfactory settlement, we are not now receiving any interest. If that arises from the fault of the commissioners of course it is a matter for which the government should be called to account, but if it arises because the traffic is not large enough to maintain the road and pay the interest, I suppose it is like a good many bad debts and we shall have to make the best of it under the circumstances.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is very easy to see that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) took no very active interest in the recent by-election which was held in the county so ably represented by my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Leonard). But it is a little discouraging to us to see that the right hon. leader of the House, who came into the county, who knows what a deep interest we have in this question, who I think referred to it on nomination day-does not, now that the election is over, see fit to give us some assurance as to the things which his friends throughout the county during the election, pledged the government to accomplish. They were very sanguine during the election and they strongly urged the electors to vote for the opponent of my hon. friend (Mr. Leonard) because he was the only one that could get from the government the action which was necessary to relieve the people of Laval and the adjoining counties. But the day of the election is over. We have the spectacle of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, not uttering a single word on this, to us, most important question, and we have the Minister of Finance informing us that the government derives no revenue from these bonds. I can tell my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Fielding) not only that the government derives no revenue from these bonds, but that they will never receive a cent of the capital. He ought to be aware of that fact, and not being aware of that fact,

it is the duty of the government to come to the relief of the farmers of the counties mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Leonard) and to do something to put a stop to the abuses which exist there, and which are the fault of these gentlemen opposite to so large an extent. Let me briefly explain to this House

At six o'clock tli? House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at Eight o'clock.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Speaker, although the question of the Montreal Turnpike Trust was much discussed during the last election, and although the right hon. prime minister referred to it at the meeting on nomination day eight days before the election, yet the government could not give us any satisfactory assurance that some redress would be granted for the grievances which formed the subject of continual debate during the election. Let me acquaint the members of this House as briefly as possible with the nature of those grievances, and the remedy which it is In the power of the Dominion government to provide for them.
The Montreal Turnpike Trust, which controls all the great avenues into the city of Montreal from the surrounding municipalities is an old corporation, an administrative body, organized at the beginning of the last century, and replete with those faults which characterized every administrative body in this country before the great municipal reforms took place which have brought about the changes which you see to-day in every other corporate body. Thus, to give you an example, although It is an administrative body, charged with the administration of the public roads around the city of Montreal, and consequently a body whose work and deliberations interest every citizen of Montreal and every farmer who has access to Montreal from the surrounding parishes, still the law declares that no outsider has a right to attend the deliberations of this body. Our municipal councils are open to the public, and every other public body holds its sessions in public. Here in this parliament modern progress has required that the public shall be admitted to our deliberations. But the Montreal Turnpike Trust is the only exception to that general rule that X know of in this country. In that sense and in every other sense it is a close corporation.
Another short-coming of that corporation, in regard to which the people of Laval and the people of my own constituency complain very bitterly, is that its work is not done in the way in which public works are now done throughout the country, that is, by tender and contract. The Montreal Turnpike Trust has yearly deficits. The roads around the city of Montreal, as is well known to all who have occasion to pass along them, 16*
are in a deplorable condition both summer and winter. My hon. friend from Laval has cited some of the utterances of the press of the city of Montreal in regard to those roads, and from year to year, since 1896, for some reason or other, these roads have been kept in worse and worse order every succeeding season, until this winter it has been a subject of comment, not only in the newspapers of Montreal, but in the whole surrounding country, that our winter roads under the administration of this Turnpike Trust are in a disgraceful condition. The work not being done by tender and contract, we do not get the worth of our money. The contracts are given to friends, to men who have agreeable relations with the members of the Trust, very often to incompetent men who sublet the work ; and the result is that for the large amount of money that is expended yearly on these roads we have not an adequate return. In that respect, again, the law requires to be altered, so that the trustees shall be required to solicit public tenders for all works of importance, and to give the contract to the lowest responsible tenderer.
Under the charter which governs that corporation it is impossible for those who are interested in the proper administration of the Trust to see how the money has been expended. Here, in Ottawa, the expenditures of the government are subject to strict scrutiny. We have a yearly audit, and we are fully acquainted with what is done with the money which goes into the public treasury. The same thing obtains in the different provinces, as well as in all the municipalities in our province, and I have no doubt everywhere else. The banks themselves, which in a certain sense are private corporations, give a yearly account of what is done with their funds. But there is no such law applicable to this corporation, and as a consequence one is obliged every year to move, here or in the provincial legislature, in order to obtain some idea of what lias been done with the very considerable revenue which this corporation derives from the taxpayers and from those who use the roads. That, again, was a point frequently adverted to in the last election, and candidates on both sides and their friends pledged themselves that they would insist, with this government as well as with the provincial government, that that great defect in the law should be cured, and that we should have yearly returns from this corporation in order that we might know how our funds are administered.
The consequence of the present system is that we have bad roads. This corporation controls all the great avenues into the city of Montreal, and their control goes so far that it prevents the proper development of the great suburban municipalities which surround the city. If any municipality or any private individual opens a road in order to facilitate access to the city for the public,

and that road happens to intersect one of the great avenues which are under the control of this body, what do they do ? They place a toll gate at the intersection, and the man who is merely crossing their road for the purpose of following some new municipal highway or some road which has been opened by a private individual who wishes to sell lots and thus increase the development of the city of Montreal, he has to pay toll to the Montreal Turnpike Trust. The result is that it checks the opening up of new roads which are rendered necessary by the subdivision into lots of farms surrounding the city and the building on those lots, and absolutely paralyses the development of the city of Montreal. If on that point the law were altered, and it were declared that the mere intersecting of one of the turnpike roads by some municipal or private road would not necessitate the payment of tolls, that would be some remedy for what is to-day a crying grievance. The Montreal Turnpike Trust, owing to this frequent intersecting of their roads, have been obliged to add very considerably to the number of their toll bars.
We have arrived at this result, that on a revenue of $60,000 or $65,000 a year from these toll gates, they are obliged to expend at present over $18,000 a year merely for the maintenance of these gates which, in the proper course of things and which with judicious legislation, could no doubt be made to disappear, as they have disappeared in the neighbourhood of every large city upon the continent of America.
The hon. the Minister of Finance has stated that this corporation was the creation of the provincial legislature, and that the government of the Dominion derived no revenue from the $200,000 of bonds which it held in this corporation and were powerless to interfere. Let me point out why it is considered in the counties of Jacques Cartier, Laval and the others surrounding Montreal, that the key of the situation is in the hands of the Dominion government. Under the law, this government, being a creditor of that corporation to the extent of over $200,000, is entitled to representation on the board of directors. There are, if I mistake not, three representatives of this government on that board, and they are the majority. The other two commissioners are appointed by the provincial government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There are seven, if the hon. gentleman will allow me to correct him, and the provincial government has a majority.
Mr. MONIL My hon. friend is mistaken. There are five trustees in all-two named by the provincial government-which has created this body and to a certain extent controls it, which has the right to legislate with regard to it-and three named by the Dominion government, which is the only Mr. MONK.
creditor of the Montreal Turnpike Trust. The control is therefore in the hands of the Domionion government, and any legislation which the trustees named by the provincial government might wish to obtain in the Quebec legislature may be vetoed by the three trustees who represent the Dominion. And as a matter of fact, a year or two ago, when a member of the provincial legislature sought to obtain'by positive enactment a remedy to one of the numerous grievances which we complain of, he failed to succeed because the Dominion government, through the Minister of Finance, interfered to oppose that legislation and obtained its rejection upon the ground that the legislation proposed might have the effect of diminishing the* revenues of this Dominion, although I may say the interest on the bonds have not been paid since 1896, We claim therefore that the Dominion government, by its yearly election of these three commissioners, has the control of the Montreal Turnpike Trust and is the power behind the throne which can control legislation and obtain for us the reforms that are absolutely needed.
Let me tell you, Sir, what this question was which was agitated in the Quebec legislature. As my hon. friend from Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) knows-and I am glad to see he is taking an interest in this question and very sorry to see that the other members from the counties around the city of Montreal, who have an equal interest with myself in this important question, are not here to defend their rights-as my hon. friend from Gaspe knows, we have in the city of Montreal absolutely inadequate accommodation for our public markets. The farmers from the counties of Terrebonne, Two Mountains, Laval and from Ohambly, Laprairie and Jacques Cartier are, in consequence of that want of accommodation, obliged to leave their farms generally at eight or ten o'clock in the evening in order to secure some kind of a place upon the Bonsecour Market, the following day. Leaving their homes early in the evening, they pass the toll bars before midnight, and as they cannot return on the same day, midnight intervening, they are obliged to pay toll again on their return the following day. Under the Conservative rule that injustice was recognized, and the keeper of the toll-gate was authorized to issue tickets to the farmers, good for forty-eight hours. But no sooner had the trustees of my hon. friend the Minister of Finanee entered upon the board than that permission was revoked, and the member of my own constituency, who represents me in the local legislature, endeavoured to obtain the passage of a law obliging the Montreal Turnpike Trust to give to farmers tickets good for forty-eight hours. Thanks to the interference of the Dominion government that measure was blocked, and our farmers to-day, on account of the failure of the city of Mont-

real to give them adequate accommodation upon the central market, have been since 1896 obliged to pay double toll. It would be very easy to remedy that state of things. It could be done either by the passage of a law or by the Montreal Turnpike commissioners passing an ordinance or a by-law to make the toll five cents going and five cents returning. But this government appears to be so completely oblivious of the interests of the farmers and so forgetful of the pledges made by its partisans during the last election, that nothing whatever is done to remedy this injustice. What we want has been indicated by the hon. member from Laval. And it is in the power of this government very easily to obtain for the people what they want and give them satisfaction. We want public sessions of the Turnpike Commissioners. The body has not a representative character, but it should have that character. The mayors of the parishes in the counties interested ought to have the right, not by claiming permission, but the right by law, to go to the sessions of the Montreal Turnpike Trust, to witness what takes place there and to make necessary suggestions. It is for this government to determine whether it will use its influence in order to obtain them that right. The fact is that the body is not constituted as it should be. A body that is entrusted with the administration of such important interests as the proper keeping of the roads in the vicinity of Montreal, should have a representative character. The men who administer the great avenues approaching the city of Montreal should be elected. That is our contention; and a system could easily be devised, if these hon. gentlemen would only show us a little good will, by which, if not the whole body, at least a part of it, would be elected. The people would then feel that they have on that board somebody chosen by themselves to look after their interests in regard to these roads, which are so very important to them. Farmers generally come in three or four times a week from their homes to the city of Montreal, bringing heavy loads of their produce; and it is positively disgraceful to see the way in which the roads by which they must travel are now kept. Not only should we have representatives of the people in these bodies, but the sessions of the body should be made public. And we should have yearly returns of the financial operations of the Montreal Turnpike Trust, in order that we may see exactly what is done with oar money. We should have the power which is demanded by everybody upon the Island of Montreal-the power to intersect these great public highways with our municipal roads, our private roads-all roads opened in order to facilitate the development of that great city without being witnesses of such atrocious abuses as we see at present, the Montreal Turnpike Trust placing a toll-gate at the intersection
of these roads and charging every one full toll for simply crossing their road. That is a crying injustice, and it can be removed by legislation.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) does not mean that we have the power to legislate on the matter in this parliament ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The Dominion government, in making its yearly election of three trustees, can impose upon these trustees-who control the body-any conditions it chooses. If, when that election takes plaee, and it takes place every year, the trustees named by my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Fielding), for it is he himself who names them by sending down, I think, the Deputy Minister of Finance, to cast the annual vote, though it is to be cast in favour of these trustees-can give them any instructions necessary. He can instruct them that these reforms must be brought about by legislation. And, Mr. Speaker, we should have the forty-eight-hour ticket restored to us. My hon. friend from Laval knows how that question, small as it may appear to my colleagues here, was discussed during the last election. He pledged himself that, the first time he opened his lips in parliament, it would be to demand from the government the redress of these grievances. He has carried out his pledge; and now it is for members of the government and their friends who gave similar pledges during the election, to show similar sincerity by advocating-and seeing to it that what they advocate is carried out-a complete reform of the system. What is preventing progress is that the Dominion government is a creditor to that trust to the enormous sum of, I think, about $200,000. I have told the House before, and the hon. Minister of Finance admitted it last session, that the existence of that great claim obliged him to oppose the passage of salutary legislation in the provincial legislature. What I suggested last year to the Minister of Finance, and what I suggest again, is this : There is no doubt whatever that not one cent of that indebtedness will ever be discharged. My hon. friend from Gasp6 (Mr. Lemieux) knows perfectly well that, with the increasing wants of the trustees in order to maintain the roads in good order, with the yearly increase of the charge to maintain toll-gates multiplying them every year, it is impossible to conceive any circumstances under which any part of that capital will be repaid. The House knows that, since 1896, not one cent of the interest has been paid. And the hon. Minister of Finance, if he takes the trouble to inquire, will receive ample assurance that the trust will never be able to pay one single copper of the interest. Under these circumstances, I suggested last year, and I suggest again to the government, that it should intimate to the local legislature, which has the power to legislate, and also to the trustees, the ma-

jority of whom are the nominees of this very government that, as soon as the grievances of which the counties that I have already named complain, and complain with justice, shall have been removed by legislation, the government will be ready to forego its claim of $200,000-that claim being, as I have said, absolutely irrecoverable. And I venture to say here, without fear of contradiction from anybody who is acquainted with the subject, that on the day that that assurance has been given, and given in such a way as to insure the promise being carried out, the legislature of Quebec will have no more pressing matter before it than the reform of these abuses and the placing of the Montreal Turnpike Trust upon a reasonable basis, so that the rights of those who pay may be respected, as they ought to be. Let the government announce that as its policy. Let the government say to the trust that the remission of the debt is assured, if legislation approved of by this government is passed by the local authorities, and within a year of this date that vexed question-which, so long as it remains a question, will be agitated in every single election in the county- will be satisfactorily settled.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: This debate, so far as it has gone, will serve to illustrate once more the wisdom of the rule which requires that, when a demand is made for papers, the speech in support of the motion ought to be limited to merely describing what is required, and the debate on the main question ought to be deferred until such time as the House is placed in possession of the documents. Now, what are we called upon to deal with here? We are called upon to deal with the affairs of a corporation which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the local legislature of Quebec. After having listened to my hon. friend, Mr. Speaker, you would naturally be under the impression that this is a very substantial grievance that he has made known to the House to-night.
Now listen to the other side of this case. I have to admit that I am going to speak with imperfect information at my disposal, because this is not a matter that one looks after in advance of the production of the documents. My hon. friend says that in the county of Laval, the county of Jacques Cartier, and other counties in the vicinity of Montreal, they have very bad roads, and that because they have very bad roads this government ought to be brought to task for it. Now, Mr. Speaker, in the vicinity of every great city in this country all the rural municipalities should have roads, they are a necessary adjunct of our civilization, you cannot get on without them. But how are these roads created ? How are they maintained ? These roads are created by the municipalities for the uses of which they are intended, and they are maintained by these municipalities.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What did my hon. friend tell you ? He says these roads we now speak of were created by the expenditure of the public money of Canada, of the old provinces of Canada. They never cost the inhabitants one farthing, and still we don't maintain them after having created them. That is their grievance.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We pay for their maintenance.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Let me describe how they pay for them. These roads cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. At the present time the balance of capital, with the reduction that has been made in connection with the advances made on that portion which belongs to the Dominion of Canada, they still owe us. They cannot pay any interest even, there is $25,000 of accumulated interest on that indebtedness. Now if the ordinary business rule were applied by a government to a corporation indebted in the amount that I have described, they would first take care to see that the interest was paid.


Mr. COCHRANE.: What are they doing with the toll money for the roads ? Are the roads so bad they are not paying any interest on their bonds ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The toll money does not produce enough to maintain the roads and pay interest on the bonds. But the ordinance under which the money was expended provides that the riparian proprietor, the man whose property fronts on that road, should contribute his share to the construction of that road, and they have never done it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I do not think he can cite that.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have not prepared a special brief for this case to-night, but as my hon. friend has done so, I refer him to the ordinance, I think 4th Victoria, that created the trust, and he will find in that ordinance the ordinary common sense rule that the riparian proprietor, the man whose property fronts on this road, should contribute to its maintenance.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is not what the section says.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Please allow me. I have not prepared a brief, but I have had some experience in legislation in this country.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But I think it is only fair that I should deny it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. gentleman has a perfect right to make a denial. As I said, I am speaking from recollection, and my hon. friend has a prepared brief, and on a prepared brief he takes the responsibility of making the denial, and he should accept that responsibility.	-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend will allow me. We liave no rights whatever in these roads, the roads themselves belong to the Montreal Turnpike commissioners, and the riparian proprietor is not, under the law as it stands to-day, obliged to do any work on the roads.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: He is not obliged to maintain the road at all. But here is what the law of the province of Quebec, says that the riparian proprietor is primarily responsible for the maintenance of the road that passes across his property. That is the general rule, and when this ordinance 4th Victoria was passed it was the rule then, and in order to meet that case and to provide that the riparian proprietor should not be relieved of his common law obligation to maintain his front, it is provided that the commissioners shall have the right to ask from the man whose property fronts on the road to commute his obligation to maintain the road, and to pay a sum equivalent to that obligation to the trustees.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is what I said. That is a very different thing. Has that been done '!


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That has not been done. My hon. friend had better remember that others have read the statutes besides himself. That is a statement I make, and he agrees with it. That has not been done, and if he wants these roads maintained let the riparian proprietors fulfil their legal obligation and they can easily maintain them.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am glad to get that declaration from the government.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend must bear in mind that in this case there are two parties to the dispute, there is the party of the proprietors in this part of the country that do not want to maintain their roads; there is the other side of the case, the ratepayers of the Dominion of Canada. The Dominion of Canada are creditors of these individuals, and we come to them and say :	If you cannot pay us the
capital at least pay us our interest.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: But they do not.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: 
Matthew Henry Cochrane: But you did get something from them.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We got the interest, and we never got anything since. They paid the toll, but we didn't get any money.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend says they got interest at the time.
I think if my hon. friend were to do as I asked him to do a minute ago, wait until the papers are brought down before expressing an opinion on this matter and he would find that the interest was not paid in those days, he would find that it was necessary that the capital should remain as it was, and the interest had accumulated to such an extent, and the burden had grown so large, that it was obligatory upon the government to reduce their claim even in those days, cut it practically in two, as the Minister of Finance tells me ; and notwithstanding that the claim has been cut in two, we are still asked to wipe out the balance of it. Now it does seem to me that we cannot very well afford to be so generous at the expense of the people of Canada. Besides, if we are going to do it for these people why not do it for my county ? Why not do it for all the rural municipalities represented here to-night ? Why should there be any distinction between them ? It seems to me that when in other parts of this country the ratepayers maintain their own roads, create and maintain them, these gentlemen should do likewise.


George Taylor: You did not give them a chance to take off the tolls.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Take off the tolls and give them the roads. Take off the tolls, and what is going to become of our capital and interest 1


Matthew Henry Cochrane: What good is it now ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If my hon. friend had ever gone through those municipalities he would have found out what it is good for. If he had ever seen the roads which have been created by which these gentlemen have benefited all these years, he would realize that the ratepayers in those municipalities are as well able and better able to pay than the ratepayers of nine-tenths of the municipalities in the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. McCREARY.: How did it come about that the Dominion of Canada built roads in that particular portion of Canada ? It cannot be done in any other province.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Under the ordinance 4th Victoria, so far as my memory serves me-that was about 1840-two trusts were created, one in the vicinity of Quebec and the other in the vicinity of Montreal. These two trusts were created for the purpose of building roads in the neighbourhood of these cities. The trusts were unable to get the money necessary by the sale of debentures for the building of these roads. The debentures were offered to the public and the public lost what they put into the roads. The government took the balance. At the time of confederation these debentures that were held by the old province of Canada formed part of the assets of the Dominion and were distributed, one portion to what are now Ontario and Quebec, while another portion was assigned to the Dominion of Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And the government guaranteed the interest.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, the government guaranteed the interest and paid interest, but that was not on these debentures. The issue now is as to whether the persons who benefited by the construction of these roads, that is to say, the riparian owners, are under an obligation to pay for the construction of these roads, which they have not done. My statement is that under the statute there is what they call a commutation clause ; that is, that the riparian proprietor commutes his obligation to maintain his front into a money payment and that money payment has not been made.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understand the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) to say that there is an obligation on the part of the riparian proprietor to maintain the road ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is an obligation made expressly by law upon him to pay his commutation money, and he ought to be made to pay it.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: He had that to pay besides the tolls on the road.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes. The thing is very simple; a man, or a farmer, for Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
instance, might not have occasion to cross the toll bar; yet he has the use of the road and does not pay for it. Is that fair play, or justice, or common sense ?


Mr. GILMOUR.: Who is at fault for not collecting this commutation money ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I consider the fault is on those who have allowed the commissioners all these years to go on without collecting it.


James Gilmour: Were they the municipalities, or who were they ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, the commissioners themselves. They ought to be made to pay it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is the government not the commissioners.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, this question of the Turnpike Trust is nothing but an election cry, so much so that when the Tory government was in power the Liberals, in the county of Laval, agitated the question. In 1S88, Mr. Justice Fortin, the exmember of the county of Laval, was a candidate for the local legislature. The main plank of his platform was this very question of the abolition of the Turnpike Trust. In 1890 he was again a candidate in that county. He was then opposed by the Hon. Mr. Leblanc, one of the friends of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk), one of the most prominent Conservatives in Quebec, who stood by the Turnpike Trust, and who, speaking in Laval, to my recollection, said that the Federal government would never consent to remit the amount of $200,000 that was due. Now things have changed. We are on this side and my hon. friend is on the other side. He is asking this government to remit to the trust the sum of $195,000, because this is the amount due to the Federal government. I may say at once that the government has already been very generous, because some years ago the debt amounted to $400,000, and the then government remitted $200,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We will be satisfied if you do the same thing now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It was then agreed that this amount was remitted in order to give the Turnpike Trust a chance to at least pay the interest on the balance; that is to say, on the sum of $200,000. They paid the interest for a few months, or a year or so, but later on we learned that the interest had been taken out of the capital. To-day the arrears of interest amount to $28,000. Now, I am very glad that this question has been brought up before the House by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, because, during the last campaign in Laval, where, fortunately for himself, he was successful where he placed a feather in his cap, my learned friend discussed that question on every hustings, but he has not given the government the benefit of his wisdom, he

has not told the government what was the remedy for the situation created by the Turnpike Trust in the surroundings of Montreal. He now prays the government to remit $195,000. But what will happen after that ? There are some other interested parties. The local government of Quebec is also a creditor, and there are some private individuals who are creditors. Shall they remit the amount or shall only the Federal government remit $195,000, and will the Turnpike trust do better than it has done in the past ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) allow me to ask him, what the indebtedness of the local government Is ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not positive as to that, but I know the local government is also a creditor, because the local government has had two representatives, or two trustees, on the commission. Suppose the Federal government remits that amount of $195,000, what will happen ? Will the roads be kept in a better state, because, I understand, that this is the main issue this evening ? My learned friend bases his complaint on the deplorable condition of the roads in the surroundings of Montreal. What will happen if the government remits this amount ? Will the other interested parties do likewise and will the roads be repaired and maintained by the municipalities ? Will the municipalities of the county of Jacques Cartier and the county of Laval, represented by my two hon. friends, take upon themselves to maintain these roads ? I would be very glad to have a declaration from my learned friend because if he would return to his electors at the next election with this result, I do not think he would get their votes as he got them last time. If this amount were remitted by the local government and by the other interested parties and by the Federal government, the roads would have to be maintained by the municipalities. Therefore, I contend that this is not the place to discuss this question. It belongs to the local government, or the local legislature of Quebec. and it falls within the purview of the Municipal Code.


Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that I live far enough away from the turnpike road to enable me to say that I am not interested in the tolls. What strikes me in this discussion is that the government of the day are acting, not as private individuals would act. There is a debt owed by a certain trust. If the trust is able to pay, it is the duty of the government to enforce it, not to enforce it perhaps with all the severity of the penalties that a private individual would enforce a debt, but if the people are able to pay they should pay. We must not go back to ancient his-tor and say that because the Conservative government in the past did not collect this money when it might have collected it, this government should not collect it. What
has struck me in this discussion is that the question of this turnpike road and the remission or collection of the debt due has been used by the government as a political lever in every election. Surely this is a wrong thing on general principles for a government to enter into. I gather from the discussion that the right hon. Prime Minister of this country was one of those who took part in this election. I gather the question of the remission or collection of this debt was the subject of discussion between the different candidates. The supporters of the government candidate, among them the Prime Minister, let it be understood that if the electors should return their man the government would favourably consider the remission of this tax. That argument was used against the Conservative candidate. Well, fortunately for the county, Mr. Leonard, the Conservative candidate, was elected, and now evidently the government is going to do nothing. The Minister of Finance led the House to believe very squarely that this was one of the bad debts of the Dominion.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not say that.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Not directly, but I think you led us to infer it. You said that this would be probably like many others of bad debts and that it might be wiped out.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I said that under certain conditions it might be a bad debt.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I inferred from what you said that you looked upon this as one of the bad debts of the Dominion and from the discussion which I have heard up to that time, I agreed with you. But it would appear now that probably this debt is collectable, and if it is collectable it is the duty of the government to collect it. If it is not collectable it is the duty of the government to make as fair an arrangement as possible and wipe it off and get rid of it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Do we always wipe off a debt because we cannot at once collect it ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: You do not, but some gentlemen say that the proprietors can pay it and then the government should force them to pay it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) would not like that.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Do not let us have all this discussion about a debt that is owed by a municipality to this government and do not let us have it as a sore point for years and years, and made a factor in every election that may take place. If it is a bad debt, wipe it off; if it is a collectable debt, collect It.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In reply to some of the remarks made, I refer the

House to 3 Vie., chap. 31, paragraph 15, which provides :
And be it further ordained and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after the passing of this ordinance, each and every person and persons, body or bodies politic or corporate,
who may be bound by any law of this province, or any procSs verbal duly homologated, (and all such laws and procgs verbaux, shall remain in full force, except in so far as they are hereby expressly derogated from) to repair or keep up, or to perform any service or labour, on or with regard to any portion of any road hereby placed under the control of the said trustees, shall and are hereby re paired to commute all such obligations with the said trustees for such sum of money as may be agreed upon by such parties respectively, and the said trustees, and such commutation money shall be payable annually, on the first day of March in each year.
And they have never paid a farthing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Rodolphe Lemieux: (Translation) moves for :
An address to His Excellency the Governor General for a copy of the report from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, dated December 8, 1901, in the matter of an appeal from the Court of King's Bench for the province of Quebec (appeal side) between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, appellant, and Adrien Roy, respondent.
It is not my intention to go at any great length into a review of the facts relating to the motion I have just put before the House. Let me say, at the very outset, that I am happy to see the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) in his seat, at a moment when I wish to call his attention to the disastrous consequences to the province of Quebec resulting from the recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of England.
The hon. minister will, no doubt, realise the importance attaching to my motion, the more so as, more than any one else, he is able to represent here and voice the feeling of the province of Quebec, in so far as her laws are concerned. It is hardly necessary for me to remark that the hon. gentleman not only occupies a high standing among the members of the Bar of Quebec, hut that his high legal reputation is acknowledged even beyond this wide Dominion of ours. As I remarked before, the hon. minister, I am sure, will realize the importance of the issue I am now bringing before the House.
The judgment of the Privy Council just referred to has caused a painful sensation throughout the province of Quebec. Let me briefly sketch out the controversy in question. In 1899, a settler, by the name of Adrien Roy, living in one of the townships to the north of Montreal, being the owner Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
of a small timber limit, was the victim of a fire communicated to his property from the sparks of a locomotive belonging to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
Grounding his claim upon the law of our province and the jurisprudence sanctioned by our tribunals, he brought an action against the company, to recover the indemnity to which he was entitled. The case was heard before the Superior Court, presided over by one of our most eminent judges, Mr. Justice Langelier. After protracted pleadings, the company was sentenced, on December 5th, 1899, to pay to the defendant, as compensation, the sum of $300. Powerful as the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is, it appealed from that judgment to the Court of King's Bench, presided over by five judges. The pleadings before that court were as protracted and as exhaustive as those that took place before the Superior Court. The Court of Appeal, without a dissentient voice, confirmed the judgment of the lower court.
As I said a little while ago, the amount of the litigation was but three hundred dollars, and under the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, there could be no appeal to a higher tribunal. Let the House here allow me to call its attention to what in my view, is a most vicious practice, adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Under the provisions of the code of civil procedure, the right of appeal is determined by the amount in litigation, or by contingent future rights. The code provides that there can be no appeal to the Privy Council of England, in cases where the amount at stake is under $2,000. But, in virtue of what may be called au ' appeal of grace,' the Privy Council sometimes allows litigants to be heard, even when the amount in litigation is below that sum. Such was the case in this instance, notwithstanding the formal prohibition enacted by the code. Therefore, the company, after ruining a poor settler, was condemned by our tribunals, but taking advantage of the privilege granted by the Lords of the Privy Council, they lodged a new appeal and succeeded in getting the unfortunate judgment I have just referred to, which reversed the whole jurisprudence sanctioned by a long series of decisions rendered by all the courts of the province of Quebec.
The Privy Council declared that, from the moment that a company was authorized by an Act of Parliament to run a railway, it could not be held liable for damages caused, when acting within the rights conferred by its charter.
The hon. gentleman will perhaps hear with surprise that such a doctrine was propounded by the Privy Council ; but, to clear up all doubts, let me quote from the ' dictum '-for there are no grounds whatever to be found in the judgment-of the Lord Chancellor of the Judicial Committee :-

But the ground upon which the immunity of a railway company for injury caused by the normal use of their line is based is that the legislature, which is supreme, has authorized the particular thing 30 done in the place and by the means contemplated by the legislature, and that cannot constitute an actionable wrong in England any more than it can constitute a fault by thy Quebec code.
And further on :
And the whole case turns not upon what was the common law of either,country, but what is the true construction of plain words authorizing the doing of che very .hiiig complained of. The legislature is supreme, and if it has enacted that a thing is lawful, such a thing cannot be a fault or an actionable wrong.
As I said, a railway company, which is empowered under a charter granted by the Dominion Parliament, to operate a railway, cannot be held responsible for damages caused, when acting within the rights conferred by its charter ; because, as they say, the legislature is supreme, which did confer such exorbitant rights.
This doctrine, astounding as it is, may be conformable to English law ; but though it may prevail in the old country, let it be remarked that, after this judgment had been rendered, the London ' Times,' the most important organ of public opinion in the empire, denounced the very next day that doctrine, and suggested that it should be given up, as contrary to equity. Let me further say this, that quite recently, Mr. Jeffries, member for Basingstoke, brought down a Bill for making railway companies liable for fires caused by sparks from their locomotives. The Bill has reached its second reading; the principle of it has been approved of by a large majority of the House of Commons; and if it has not yet reached its third reading, it is owing to the fact that parliament was prorogued. The Bill will come up again at the next session of parliament.
But supposing such doctrine prevailed in England, could the Lords of the Privy Council plead ignorance of the fact that in the province of Quebec, corporate bodies are assimilated by law to individuals. Article 1053 of the Civil Code reads as follows :
Every person capable of discerning right from w'rong is responsible for the damage caused by his fault to another, whether by positive act, imprudence, neglect or want of 3kill. Article 356 enacts, among other things :
Civil corporations constituting, by the fact ol their incorporation, ideal or artificial persons, are as such governed by the laws affecting individuals ; saving the privileges they enjoy and the disabilities they are subjected to.
So positive, so clear a text has never yet given rise to ambiguity before our tribunals. Moreover, our jurisprudence on that point has received the sanction even of the Supreme Court of Canada, the decisions of which, as a rule, are far from evincing any sympathy with our province.
In the case of Gareau vs. The Montreal Street Railway Company, Hon. Judge Girouard, of the Supreme Court, has given an opinion which tallies with the opinion of the Court of Appeal.
With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I shall quote from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, passing under silence the views expressed by Sir Alexander Lacoste, and by Judges Boss5 and Blanchet, who are of French extraction. But what did Judge Hall say ? X experience all the more pleasure in quoting his opinion, as he is, as shown by his name, of British origin. But it is a well known fact that he is a warm admirer of the French laws of our province. Listen to what the honourable judge says : The courts of this province have by a long series of decisions maintained the principle of responsibility for damage to a neighbour's property. Independently of the question of fault or negligence in the ordinary use of those words as well in cases of damage from flres set for clearing lauds, as by sparks from chimneys of industrial establishments.
The hon. judge then goes on quoting a long list of judgments, and says :
Whatever our personal opinion might have been upon the question we would certainly have felt controlled by the well set jurisprudence of our provincial courts, but we may add that wc entirely concur in the wisdom and equity of the rule which our courts have established. It is plain too, that in countries where a contrary rule is in force, many judges protest against its correctness and evade its effects where an opportunity presents. For instance, in Powell vs. Fall, in the Queen's Bench in England, the owner of a fraction engine in use upon a highway, under the authority of the English locomotive Act, and constructed in strict compliance with the terms of that Act, were held liable for damage caused by sparks setting Are to an adjacent stack, and Justice Branswell, In delivering the judgment of the court, remarked that the arguments of appellant council had been ingenious, but that he need only say in reply, that they had hardened his conviction that Rex vs. Pease and Vaughan vs. Taff Vale Company were wrongly decided.
Such was, in the eyes of Mr. Justice Hall, the jurisprudence established by our own tribunals and such was also the jurisprudence which even in England will before long prevail. Therefore, corporations, in the matter of liability for damages, are governed by the provisions of the Civil Code, and not as the Lords of the Privy Council unhesitatingly declared, by English common law. Such a construction constitutes, to our mind, a violation of the spirit and letter of our law. A jurisprudence, so well set for many years, they have ignored. No wonder, then, that such a deplorable decision should have come as a shock to us. For, let it be well understood, patient as we have been in the past of encroachments by the Dominion Government, we, from the province of Quebec, strong partisans as we are of provincial autonomy, shall not allow the Imperial authorities to infringe upon our rights, without loudly protesting. Of all things which we hold dear and sacred, and

which we wish to bequeath unimpaired to our posterity, we prize above all our civil laws and the French law, the existence of which was guaranteed to us by the constitution. So, scarcely had the judgment of the Privy Council been published, when it was most severely criticised and commented upon by the most eminent jurisconsults of our province. On January 7th, there appeared in the Montreal ' Gazette,' an article on the question, signed by ' Lex.' If I am rightly informed, ' Lex ' is no other personage than an English speaking judge, who is very well known in Montreal. Let me quote from that correspondence a few lines which need no comment:
To us, it appears that our law (as held by our courts) takes the only sensible logical position. Because the legislature grants a liberty to build and run a railway, it does not follow that the latter may set fire to my property and cause me damage without compensation. The law allows the road to run-so I, a proprietor on the line, cannot stop the running ; cannot obtain an injunction, although I may have well grounded fears of danger from fire. On the other hand the company can protect itself by adopting all the appliances which ingenuity can supply ; and by insuring against any loss which may occur.
' I say that our law so holds, rather it did so hold before the decision of the Privy Council above adverted to. In consequence of this decision, we shall nowr require the same legislation as they are asking for in England. They to get rid of their law as held by the courts, we, to get back to our law as our courts have held it to be.'
Another correspondent, who is one of the most eminent English speaking members of the Montreal Bar, writes as follows, to the ' Gazette,' in its issue of January 6th :
The judgment in Roy's case just rendered by the Privy Council strikes at the security, not only of every man's property, in this province within reach of fire from railway, but of every man's property that may be injured or burned by the operations of bodies carrying on any business authorized by their charters.
If railway companies, as their lordships hold, may with immunity burn people's properties along their lines, if they only use the latest fire screens, all other corporate bodies doing what they are authorized by their charters to do, are equally exempt from liability for their acts in destroying neighbouring properties.
It would be surprising if an effort is not made without delay, to place our law beyond question on this important subject, by legislation conformable to what our laws has always been as administered by our courts, and which every one feels is displaced by the Roy judgment in favour of a technical and inequitable rule of English law.'
If that judgment was severely commented upon by our English-speaking fellow-countrymen, I hesitate not to say that, among the French-speaking element, public opinion was thoroughly aroused. Hear what the 'Presse' has to say in an article which clearly betrays its trade-mark :
We have, so far, refrained from making any comment upon the judgment of the Privy Coun-Mr. LEMIEUX.
cil re Roy vs. the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, before having before us the text itself, but now that our doubts are cleared up, it is our duty to speak our mind, and to tell the public the unvarnished truth. We had until now, deluded ourselves into the belief that the craze for imperialism would at least show due respect to that last bulwark of political justice and equity, our courts of justice ; but we were mistaken.
That the Privy Council Lords have undertaken to make jurisprudence uniform as to a point wherein colonial jurisprudence is at variance with Engiish law, cannot be questioned. The noble Lords who have rendered this decision can hardly realise to what an extent they have injured their cause. They have just created a prejudice against an institution the real tendencies of which none ever dreamed to suspect, that it will take years and years to eradicate from the public mind. We had, so far, cheerfully accepted the decisions of the Privy Council, from a conviction that those judgments were rendered for Canada only and from the standpoint of our legislation but, now that the Privy Couacil seems to be promoted by a different feeling ; now that their judgments are framed in the light of a different legislation, it is quite another matter ; and an agitation is being, at this very moment, started into life, with a view to bringing about a change in the old procedure and for restricting those appeals, and, if need be, doing away with them altogether. Our legislatures have before them a heavy task.
I have said enough, Mr. Speaker, to show that this judgment of the Privy Council clearly inflicts a crying wrong upon the citizens of the province of Quebec who live under the authority of the Civil Code. That decision is a direct violation of our law, which nothing can atone for.
I make this motion in the hope that the lion. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) will see to it that the laws of this country are judiciously enforced.
The hon. Minister of Justice, now that he knows this decision, has a noble task before him. Let him amend, if need be, the Railway Act, and in drafting its clauses, let him use so clear a phraseology, that in the future, the Lords of the Privy Council may not be tempted into forgetting in this matter of responsibility and liability for damages, in fact that those great corporations are subject to the civil laws of the province of Quebec.
. We are happy to belong to the empire ; but any imperialistic scheme tending to* interfere with our rights and customs will And in us most irreconcilable opponents.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The report to which my hon. friend draws our attention is not one which is under the control of this House. It is a judgment rendered in a case between two private parties by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and is of course absolutely beyond our jurisdiction. No doubt my hon. friend knew this and made his motion simply for the purpose of criticising this judgment, and I am not here under any obligation to justify it at all.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have no right to do it. I think it would be extremely unseemly on my part to justify or approve of a judgment rendered by their lordships of the Judicial Committee. However, I must say that, in all fairness, we should present that judgment as it really was rendered. It is possible so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, that previous to this judgment our impression was that our law differed somewhat from what their lordships have fouud it to be. What did their lordships decide ? They decided that the law in the province of Quebec, as we have it in our Civil Code, had been wrongly interpreted up to that time by our courts. Their lordships' finding may be good or bad, but they are the highest court in the land and we have to take the law as they construe it. The Courts of Appeal are for the purpose, of interpreting the law, and this, the highest court of appeal, has con-trued the law to be as I have said, namely, that in the province of Quebec the law applicable to cases, such as the one in question, is the same as it is in England and in the English provinces. What was the case ? It was one between an individual and a corporation, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, created by the federal parliament, authorized by the federal parliament to carry on its operations throughout the whole of Canada, and running its railway through a portion of the province of Quebec. Under the sanction of the Dominion parliament this corporation operates that railway and in all respects conforms to the requirements of the statute which brought it into existence. Having in all respects complied with the law, an accident happened and fire was communicated from the railway to a barn in its vicinity. The Privy Council held that there was no fault on the part of the company because it had complied with all the requirements of its charter. It was generally understood that that was the law of the whole Dominion except with respect to the province of Quebec, as it is the undoubted law in England ; but their lordships decided that that is also the civil law under the Quebec Civil Code just as it is the law in the other parts of the country. They do not say : We are going to apply to the province of Quebec a law that is in violation of the Quebec Civil Code. On the contrary they say : We construe the law laid down in the Quebec Civil Code to be the same as rules elsewhere. Their lordships may have misconstrued our code, but they have not sought in any way to interfere with our privileges. Without attempting in any way to justify their lordships' judgment, let me put this case to the House. If this is not the law, if this corporation, acting within the rights conferred upon it by its character, is to be liable for tort in the province of Quebec, according to the local law of that province, what becomes of the supremacy of this parliament ? It is a necessary incident of the supremacy of this parliament that it should have the right to confer upon the corporation it creates the right to operate throughout the whole Dominion, and that that right should not be made subject to the action of any local legislature. Otherwise this parliament ceases to be supreme. That seems to me self evident. There is the case and there is nothing more in it, and it seems to me, when we come to consider it, a great tempest in a teapot. I know that in our province we have special privileges. We have an old axiom : Ohaque plaideur a quarante-huit heures pour maudire son juge. Every man who goes before the courts and loses has forty eight hours within which to curse his judge. That is our privilege and we use it, but we ought not to extend that privilege beyond the traditional forty-eight hours.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Ocean and river service-maintenance and repairs to government steamers, $200,000.
['I am well satisfied with the progress that has been made. But there are only two small items remaining in the Marine votes and I feel sure they will not be controversial, as they are the usual votes and there are no increases.\nSome resolutions reported.']
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice there is an increase here of $40,000. How is that accounted for ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: There is an apparent increase of $40,000. But I find that last year there was a supplementary estimate of $36,000, and the total expenditure on this service was $202,289. Increased expenditure was caused by the winter mail service to Prince Edward Island, two steamers, the ' Stanley ' and the ' Minto ' being engaged in this service. The effect of the present vote is merely to put into the main estimates a total which was divided last year between the main estimates and the supplementary estimates. I may say also that looking over this matter with the officials of the department I find that, since the two boats were in use for the winter service to Prince Edward Island, this is the least amount for which this service of maintenance and repairs of government steamers can possibly be carried on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that this ought to contain all that was in the main estimates and in the supplementary estimates last year.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes, I agree with my hon. friend. I brought the matter to the attention of the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What repairs are contemplated, and on what vessels ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The repairs, of course, are an uncertain quantity, the only certain thing being that some repairs will be necessary every season. The principal expense, of course,

is in the maintenance. There are eight of these Dominion steamers, the ' Minto ' and the ' Stanley ' are engaged in the service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. The ' Lansdowne ' has been used on the New Brunswick coast and the Bay of Fundy. The ' Aberdeen ' is in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The ' Quadra ' is in British Columbia, and the ' Brant,' a small steamer, is in the Prince Edward Island agency. The two boats chartered in place of the ' Druid ' and ' Newfield,' are, one in the Quebec agency and one in Nova Scotia. These are to be replaced next season with two new boats purchased in the old country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What has become of the ' Druid ' ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: She was condemned and I think sold for $3,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was there not a boat chartered to take the place of the ' Newfield ' last season ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The other evening, when the estimates of the Minister of Agricultu :e were under discussion, the question came up as to whether the supplementary estimates of last year were included in the column of figures showing the estimates of last year for comparison with the present, and we were told they were so Included. Now, in this item, we have an increase of $40,000, and the minister tells us that the estimates given for last year do not include the supplementary estimates.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There are always the later supplementaries in the following session, which are not included. Except for that the hon. gentleman is correct.


Edmund Boyd Osler: But it is absolutely misleading if we have one minister saying that this includes supplementary estimates and the other saying that in the case of so large an item of $40,000, the supplementary estimates is not included. We want to know whether the figures we have of 1901-2 are correct figures as compared with the estimates of 1902-3, or whether they are incorrect, whether these are correct or whether there are some supplementaries that we do not know about ?	.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The items at the left hand of the vote we have under consideration ought to represent the main estimates for the current year, and also the supplementary estimates, and if they do not in this case it is an error, and I must look into it. But that is what it is intended they should represent. Why they have not done so in this case, I cannot explain, but I will look into it


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND (Oxford).: 


Edmund Boyd Osler: Then do I understand that these estimates of 1901-2 may in every case not include the supplementary estimates V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They ought to include what I may call the main estimates and the first supplementary estimates for that year, all the votes of last session. My hon. friend knows that there is always a final winding up estimate brought down in the following session. It cannot include that, but it should include the others.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the minister tell us now how he purchases these supplies ? Is it by tender, or just giving an order, to merchants in the different ports ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: My information is that prices are asked for by tender for the staple supplies from different parties, and when the prices are ascertained then the goods are ordered. Circulars are sent out to different houses, and prices are asked for in that way for all the staples used on the boats.


George Taylor: If my hon. friend will turn up the Auditor General's Report, page 15, he will find the commencement of expenditures for Dominion steamers. The first item I draw to his attention is supplies for steamer ' Lansdowne,' 68 pounds of butter at 35 cents a pound, bought from one of the friends of the government. They purchased $408 worth of supplies, and that is a fair sample of the! charges made. It must have been gilt-edged butter. So it is all through, there is no purchase of supplies by tender. This government, which purchases so vast an amount of supplies, ought to have a warehouse of their own, and draw from that warehouse all they require for the different departments, and buy the goods at wholesale prices. Last night I drew the attention of the House to the Department of the Minister of Agriculture, where we found 168 pounds of putty charged at 8 cents a pound. Turn to the Kingston Penitentiary accounts where everything is bought by tender, and you find putty is bought at $2.25 per 100 pounds. Here you are paying nearly 400 per cent more to one of the government's friends. The late minister, Sir Louis Davies, promised that he would have this matter investigated and have a new state of affairs brought about. But we find the same system continuing, the same men, the same prices charged for supplies all the way through on these steamers. If my hon. friend will turn to the last estimate brought in by the late government in 1895-6, he will find this service was then performed just as effectively as it is now for $166,000, as compared with $243,000 now, an increase of nearly $90,000 in this one item. That shows how the expenditure is creeping up from $37,000,000 to about $57,000,000.

The ' MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES. In reply to my hon. friend
I may say that the cost of this service is comparatively about the same as under the previous government. Two boats have been added since the figures that I have spoken of, and no change has been adopted in the system by the present government. Nor am I prepared to admit that one can buy any cheaper, or as cheap probably, in spending a lot of money in advertising for articles wanted on these boats as by asking prices from various well known houses in the different cities where the goods are wanted. I would remind my hon. friend, however, that in making a comparison there are two boats more, last season we had two boats on the route between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. I want also to mention to the committee that during the short time at my disposal I find in looking into this matter that the cost of maintenance on these boats has averaged 22 cents per day per man. I hardly think my hon. friend from Deeds (Mr. Taylor) will say that 22 cents per day is an extravagant price for maintenance of officers as well as men employed on the boats. However, in view of the criticisms, I will be pleased, in asking for supplies for the coming year, to look into the matter and see whether or not any saving can be made under the system adopted.


Mr. BROOK.: May I ask the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries a question ? In looking at the item in the Auditor General's Report. I see that the vote last year was $196,000, and the expenditure $195,000. That is for Domihion steamers. I am not familiar yet with the way in which accounts are kept, but I suppose these Dominion steamers earn a certain amount of revenue. Where do we find the revenue earned, or is this expenditure over and above any receipts they have in the way of revenue ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The revenue for the year 1900-1901 was $19,421.68. If my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) will turn to page 4 of the Marine and Fisheries Report, he will find the full account of the revenue.


William Rees Brock: If you earned $19,421.68 you expended $196,000.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, that is no comparison at all. There is only one of these boats in the service that has any revenue at all, and I was very much pleased, in looking into the returns, to see that the revenue was as large as it is on the ' Minto,' which has been engaged in the trade between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, It shows that there is a very good production of commodities on the island and that there is a considerable passenger service. The other boats have no revenue. They are used altogether for maintaining lights and buoys
and other aids to navigation. 1 do not know that this is the place to discuss the question, but after looking into the matter,
I think the hon. gentleman will agree with me that, considering the importance of the transportation question and the lessening of insurance rates, which makes freight charges so high on the St. Lawrence route, it is desirable that more attention should be paid to the subject and that it will be of great advantage to the country that we should improve the aids to navigation, even if it should cost the country a small amount more. My hon. friend will see that the revenue from one boat plying between Prince Edward Island and the mainland was fairly satisfactory.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Mr. Chairman, there is one service for which these steamers are employed which has been overlooked altogether, and that is the prevention of American fishermen from coming within the limits of Dominion waters. These steamers are used around the coast of Prince Edward Island, Cape Breton and Nova Scotia in the spring and fall of the year to prevent American seiners from coming within the three-mile limit. This is one of the most important services that these steamers perform. They have also been used during the last season for repairing and laying down telegraph cables where they were out of order and where new ones were extended, so that to my own knowledge these steamers are kept pretty busy from the opening to the closing of navigation.


Mr. HACKETT.: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say in connection with this question, that I think the amount asked for is not excessive. I am pretty well assured that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries will economize in every way to save the people's money. I know that two of these steamers are plying at present between Prince Edward Island and the mainland for the purpose of keeping up communication, for the conveyance of mails, passengers and freight, in accordance with the terms of confederation entered into when Prince Edward Island became a part of the Dominion of Canada. Now, speaking of this increase, we know, as the hon. gentleman has said, that since 1896 the ' Minto ' was constructed in England, brought out here and placed co the service. That boat cost a large amount of money. We have in addition to her the ' Brant,' another boat which is engaged supplying the lighthouses around Prince Edward Island and looking after the lobster fishery. These boats are expensive to maintain each year and we must have an increase in the expenditure. The government surely will not be bound down to a small sum of money, some $40,000 or $50,000 a year, if the service in the maritime provinces is to be fully kept up and maintained. My hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) has gone [DOT] into par-

ticulars in regard to supplies. I have been very exact in that respect and I have taken the precaution to look through the Auditor General's Report. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that supplies purchased for these steamers, in so far as Prince Edward Island is concerned, are procured at as low a rate as you could buy the goods in any part of Canada. Whether you get them by tender, or whether you buy them through the captain, or through the agent, you get these supplies, so far as Prince Edward Island is concerned, as low as you can obtain similar goods for in any part of this country. I am pleased that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries has placed the steamer ' Stanley ' on the western route between Summer-side and Cape Tormentine. That boat is doing good service and this is a very important matter to the people of Prince Edward Island. The mail service has been fairly satisfactory this year, so far as 1 know, and I think there is no doubt that this service if properly managed will be successful. The hon. gentleman has been kind enough, when we represented the matter to him a few days ago, to send down the nautical adviser of the department, Capt. McElhinney to Cape Tormentine and Sum-merside for the purpose of seeing that the work was being properly carried out. While we have had Ministers of Marine and Fisheries from the island, while we have had the late Hon. J. C. Pope, who has gone to his reward, and while we have had Sir. Louis Davies, who has been promoted to the Supreme Court bench, I have not in my experience of twenty-five years found a gentleman more willing to carry out the requests of the people of Prince Edward Island than the hon. minister who is now in charge of the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As a general principle we have not been contending that the vote in the main is too large. That has not been our contention, but we have been asking for information to ascertain how this money has been spent There are two ways of spending money and it is a well known fact that one way is usually considered preferable to the other in the event of requiring to spend a large amount of money; one is by purchasing by public tender and the other is by purchasing by private price lists. The hon. member for Prince Edward Island (Mr. Hackett) felt sure that the goods which were bought were bought as cheaply in Prince Edward Island as in any part of Canada. I will not dispute that, because it seems to me on looking over the purchases that there have not been in the main unreasonable prices paid. But, I will give one instance. I will take the village of Westport, not far from Ottawa, where butter was purchased at 35 cents a pound. At what time in the present season has butter been sold, even gilt edged butter, in the city of Montreal for 35 cents a pound ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE- AND FISHERIES. I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) will find that Westport is a small port down near Yarmouth.


Mr. MATHESON.: I may tell the hon. gentleman that there was any amount of butter sold in Cape Breton for 35 cents a pound last year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If these prices prevail down there, all I can say is, that they are much higher than we get for butter in Montreal or Ontario. I speak from knowledge, because I am connected with a butter factory and I know that it was sold from the factory as low as 17i cents or 18 cents, and that was gilt edge butter. However I did-not rise to refer to that particularly. I wish to speak with regard to the system. We had considerable discussion last year and the minister told us that when there were any reasonable purchases to be made they would be made by tender and advertisement, if there was time to do so. I do not say that the bulk of these could be purchased by tender but undoubtedly a fair portion of them could be, and it is the best way to spend the public money. Some of these prices appear to be reasonable enough but some are certainly not. It may be said that when we come to advertise it causes expense. It does if you want to give patronage to the government papers all over the country. But if you pursue a businesslike course the expense of advertising will be comparatively small, and it is the safest thing to do in the public interest.


George Taylor: As my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Sutherland), is fresh in the department,
I do not intend to criticise this system as severely as I would if his predecessor were here. I draw his attention to one item at P-42, Auditor General's Report, where Mr. Pelletier, of Quebec, was paid for supplying ginger beer, and ginger ale, and English soda water, and Appolinaris to quite a considerable extent, to one of the steamers.
I do not notice any brandy or other strong drink among the items and therefore I do not severely criticise the vote if the stuff was used for a good purpose.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That was a special case during the visit of the Governor General and his suite. I think they were very moderate in keeping to ginger ale and that sort of thing.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where were these two steamers purchased ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We advertised in the newspapers, both in Canada and Great Britain, and gave the contract to the lowest tenderer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What was the cost of these steamers and from whom were they purchased ?


Edward Hackett: 


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: They were purchased from Fleming & Ferguson, of Paisley, Scotland, one for $184,983 and the other is to cost $207,684. The tenders were received through Robert Reford & Co., agents. A large amount was voted last year for these steamers and there will be a supplementary vote asked to pay the balance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it true that one of these steamers will require extensive repairs to fit it for its work ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Neither of these steamers has been delivered. It is expected they will arrive in Canada during the month of July next. The hon. gentleman is perhaps thinking of a steamer that was bought in Quebec, but she is for a different service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: From whom was the steamer hired to replace the ' Newfield ' ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: She was chartered for the season from Geo. E. Boak & Co., Halifax, at $1,500 per month.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was that steamer properly equipped for that service ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: She has been used on the service just as she was hired. There might be the ordinary repairs but nothing of any consequence.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice from the report that because the steamer was not properly equipped she was unable to do the work intended for her, and some loss was sustained in consequence, I suppose.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not know that there was any loss, but I am told by the officials that they were considerably handicapped by not having a boat well equipped. However it was the best steamer they could get at the time to supply the lighthouses and take care of the buoys.
Examination masters and mates, $5,000.


Mr. CLARKE.: I would like to ascertain from the hon. minister if he has received a petition from the National Association of Marine Engineers asking for certain changes in the Steamboat Inspection Act. I have received some communications from the secretary of that organization, and in one of them he incloses a form of petition which I understand has been forwarded to the minister. I would like to know if the petition has been received, and if the minister has agreed to meet a deputation from that organization who are desirous to state the reasons why they wish certain changes in the law.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I met a deputation from the Marine Engineers last night and they presented their petition. I went through the 17
petition clause by clause with them and heard their side of the case as to why they wanted changes in the regulations. Some of them struck me as very reasonable, and . with others of their requests I was not very well acquainted and so I made an appointment for the members of the deputation with the inspector at the head of the department, and they had an interview with him this morning. They explained what they had to say with regard to the matter and I made another engagement with the deputation to see them afterwards.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am much obliged to the hon. minister for the information he has given me. I would not have troubled him at this particular stage of the estimates, had I not two communications from the association, and I was not aware that a deputation had already visited him. I understand now that he and his officers have been in communication with the deputation and have taken into consideration the representations they made.


Mr. ALCORN.: I understand that the examiners of candidates for certificates as masters and mates generally hold other permanent positions in the service at various points throughout Canada, and the applicants pay their own expenses and somewhat high fees. How is it then that this large sum is payable to the examiners ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This vote does not cost the country anything, as the revenue last year was over $4,800. With regard to the other point my hon. friend brought up, if he would name any particular place or person I would be glad to see whether any abuse has taken place. The names of the examiners are: Gilpin, Bloomfield Douglas, D. Hunter, Morgan, at Sydney, N.S.; Murphy, at Yarmouth; Wolfe, at Lunenburg; Seaton, at Quebec; Mcllwaine, at St. Catharines ; McCuaig, at Ottawa. Most of these men received a fee of $4 a day while attending the examinations. If the hon. gentleman has any name to give me, I will make inquiry.
Rewards for saving life including life saving stations, $10,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. gentleman explain this reduction of $1,000 ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: In making up the expenditure last year, we found that it was a little under $9,000, and we thought probably $10,000 would do for the coming year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice an item for life saving in connection with one of the vessels on the upper lakes. Has the hon. gentleman any information as to the parties to whom awards were paid for life-saving ? I put this question because sometimes deserving cases are overlooked.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The following is the list, and it will be found on page 156 of the report:



Names and Designations of Persons. [DOT]	Nature of Services rendered.	Date of Service rendered.	Description of Reward.M. G. Nickerson, manager; J. E. Brown, captain ; John Ernest, engineer ; Joseph Brown, mate ; Isaac Banks, cook ; Isaac Hunt, deck-hand; S.G. Newell,purser; Everett Cleaveland, fireman; seamen of ss. Gertrude M., of Clark's Harbour, N.S.	Services rendered in saving the lives of certain fishermen caught in the ice off Bon Portage.	Feb. 9, 1901.	To owner, $35; to captain and engineer, $2 each ; mate, $2 ; cook, deckhand, purser and fireman. $1.75 each.


Captain Albert E.: Isserwood, of Port Francis, Ont.	Saving the lives of at Rainy River.	two men	Mar. 23, 1900.	A life-saving medal.k'red. C. Lahey, Robert Murray, William Scott, Edward Lahey, Richard Cline, Alfred Bennet, Robert Nicoll and Ed. Kelly, volunteer crew of the Life-boat at St. John, N.B.	Rescuing the master and crew of the American schooner Hazel Dell, wrecked near Government Pier, St. John, N.B.	Dec. 2, 1899.	A gold life-saving medal to each of the men by the President of the United States.Robert Armstrong, resident of Lower Barney's River, Pictou Co., N.S.	Saving a person from drowning off the seashore at Barney's River, N.S.	Aug. 20, 1900.	A silver watch.John Lawlor,Outer Basin,Quebec	Saving the fireman of ss. Manchester City from drowning, at Outer Basin, Quebec.	J une 13, 1900.	A bronze medal.


Walter C.: Hare, Henry Howler, Frederick C. Block, and Charles J. Peer, of Port Credit.	Bravery in the rescue of the crew of the schooner Augusta, near Port Credit, Ont.		Nov. 25, 1900.	A silver life-saving medal to each man.


John C.: 
Mr.  F. D.@: Doxrud, master; John Daddow, chief officer ; E. Peterson, boatswain; H. Loronsen, quartermaster ; Rudolph Kittle-son, M. O'Keefe, seamen of Belgian steamer Rhinland.	Rescuing the crew of the brigantine Ida Maud, of .Liverpool, N.S.	Oct. 6, 1899.	A binocular glass to master, a gold watch to chief officer, a silver watch to each: boatswain and quarter master, and $10 each to Messrs. Kettleson and O'Keefe.A. E. Tweddel, P. Lafranc, L. Chouinard, and W. Soucy, of St. Octave de Metis, Quebec.	Rescued wrecked mariners at Pointe aux Senells. **	Sept. 12, 1900.	A binocular glass to Mr. Tweddel, $10 to each of the others.


Mr. BLAIN.: Were the silver medals presented to the men who saved life at Fort Credit, Ontario ?		Point Levis, W. McDougaU; at Yarmouth, N.S., J. E. Murphy.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am Informed that they were.


Richard Blain: I have a letter saying they were not.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have no personal knowledge of the matter, but if the hon. gentleman will give me a memo. I will make inquiries.
Tidal service, including salary of assistant clerk beyond $400, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $7,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where is this service carried on ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Principally down in the Gulf and Bay of Fundy. At headquarters here Robert Angus attends to the reports; the observer at St. John, N.B., is D. L. Hutchison; at Father Point, Que., J. McWilliams at Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND (Oxford).
Winter mail service, $8,500.


Edward Hackett: This refers, I suppose, to the old ice-boat service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I hope we shall not have to use any of this money. Having two steamers, I hope we shall be able to maintain navigation.


Edward Hackett: But you hold the iceboats in reserve ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.
Marine Biological Station, $2,000.


Edward Hackett: How far has this work proceeded ? Where were the gentlemen engaged in this service working last summer ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I may give the statement

furnished me by Professor Prince, under whose particular supervision this work is done. The station was towed from St. Andrews, N.B., to Canso, N.S. The research tables were fully occupied by the stall of scientific workers, which included Professor Ramsay Wright, Professor A. P. Knight, Professor A. B. Macallum, Professor Fowler, Dr. Joseph Stafford, Mr. C. McLean Fraser, Mr. George A. Cornish, and Dr. Lin-ville, of New York.


Edward Hackett: This is the same staff with which you started ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Edward Hackett: A year ago I brought this matter up in the House. Sir Louis Davies, who was then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, said that this biological survey, would come around to the coasts of Prince Edward Island into the Straits of Northumberland, to make researches into fish life in those waters. Now that the station is at Canso, at the point of coming into the vicinity of Prince Edward Island, is it the intention to bring it into the waters around the island next year ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The committee is aware that this is a new service. As we receive the reports, we shall be able to judge better of their importance and of the value of the work. But it is the intention, if the survey is continued, to go to these different points. I have no report as to whether it is intended to go to Prince Edward Island this summer or not. But that is one place where scientific work in this line could be done to advantage.


Mr. GANONG.: I understand that the report of the work done at St. Andrews is about ready to be issued.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We have not received the report in shape to be printed yet.
Ocean and river service-salaries and expenses of cattle inspection, $2,800.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would not this more properly come under quarantine ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This relates to the shipment of cattle. The main duties of these officials are to see that when the cattle are shipped, the boat is provided with proper accommodation for the cattle, to see that the ship is properly ventilated, that she is not overloaded, and so on. There are three officers, and their salaries take up this.whole vote, except for small incidental expenses.
Lighthouse and coast service-salaries and allowances of lightkeepers, $228,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I see by the report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that the department has it in contemplation to provide 17*	.
many more lights between Montreal and Quebec and lower down the St. Lawrence. Last year we were told by Sir Louis Davies that about everything was done that could be done. But now considerable extensions are spoken of. Are these new services included in this vote ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, the increase is not included in this vote. Considerable improvement has been made in the lighting of this route, but from what I have been able to learn from those interested in the route, I must say that I am inclined to think that there is a good deal yet to be done. Perhaps the lighting between Montreal and Quebec could be considerably improved. That, perhaps, is not so pressing as improvements further down in the gulf. I had the advantage of listening, a few days ago, to what appeared to me a very intelligent and well informed representative of the British Marine Insurance Company and Lloyds. He impressed upon me the great importance of making some changes at various points. I also had the advantage of a long interview this forenoon, with representatives of the shipping interest, headed by Mr. H. Allan, and including the representative of the Refords, who, I understand, represent several lines. In consultation with the deputy and the engineer of the department, we took this matter up in detail. I am not'prepared to make a recommendation at the moment either to my colleagues or to the House. But I am so impressed with the importance of the work and the great advantage it would be to this country if we can satisfy the marine insurance companies, that the matter shall certainly not be lost sight of. Fuller investigation will be made, and I hope to receive reports from those I think we can place confidence in, starting at one end and going over the whole route. I hope to learn what is really necessary to put these aids to navigation in first class state, so that they will be accepted by Lloyds and the best Insurance companies. The route, I hope, will be made so free from danger to shipping, that we shall have the same rates of insurance that are now given on the American route. By so doing we will reduce the rate of freight especially on the produce of the country to such an extent that we will reap a reward for any reasonable amount of money that may be so expended. That is a matter that I will endeavour to consider within a week or two and come to some conclusion on it and make a report. If the scheme is agreed to, I will ask the House for the necessary grant of money. I do not find that the amount of money required to make the improvements even that are suggested by the captains of the various steamship lines that are continually using this route, would be so very great. I think that after some decided improvements made to the power of the lights, and perhaps placing sirens

instead of the ordinary fog whistles that we have now, no fault can be found by the insurance companies. But for a reasonable expenditure permanent improvement can be made at one or two points, I have almost come to the conclusion that I will be perfectly safe in making a report, and in asking this House to undertake the work that will be recommended by the officers of the department. I feel that there is a good deal of prejudice, a good deal of misunderstanding, as to what has been done and what is required, and if possible I would be inclined to ask a small vote for the next season, and ask the co-operation of the British Board of Trade, the representatives of the marine insurance companies and the parties most interested, to accompany the officers of the department to take a trip over that route and make a report. I think a report made by men, disinterested in one sense, but whose main interest would be to see that the aids to navigation were perfect, so that the companies could afford to reduce the rate of insurance, would create confidence and give great satisfaction to all parties, and would be of great benefit to Canada.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, in expressing himself as he has done, shows that he appreciates the importance of this service. I cannot speak as an expert, but from what I hear I believe that our lighthouse service is absolutely bad, is absolutely faulty ; that it is absolutely insufficient, I know. If you take a map of Lake Superior, of the Georgian Bay and our inland waters that are now becoming as important as the St. Lawrence, and if you look at the lighthouse service we have there, and compare it with the American lighthouse service, and when you consider that we are doing all we can to build up an inland marine, and see what risks our ships run in our channels, you must come to the conclusion that this service has been neglected very much by our government in the past. I think this is one of the most important questions this parliament has to deal with. Our shipping is increasing very rapidly on our northern lakes, and our trade is all being carried now by Canadian boats. I think it is due to the enterprise that is putting on new boats on these waters that the government should give us better lighting service on our coast, equal at least to the lighting that is done on the American coast. I hope the new Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who comes from an inland quarter, and can have no prejudice for the sea, or the lakes, will devote himself particularly to improving this particular branch of the service, which I think is all important if we are to increase our inland navigation as well as the navigation of the St. Lawrence.


Gilbert White Ganong: I feel myself that transportation is the greatest problem that we have before us, and the greatest factor in Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND (Oxford).
that problem is to make it possible for ships safely to carry our products after they have been put on board the vessel. I am not going to advertise any stock company in which I have any interest, but I desire to call the attention of the minister and of the committee to a new means that has been devised for protection of coastal waters. I had an opportunity the other day when in Boston, of examining a recently patented device, and I think that our deputy minister and our chief engineer also had the privilege of looking into this matter to some extent a year ago. However, it has been perfected very much since then. The United States government have felt so interested in it that they have placed at the disposal of the inventor one of their own vessels in order to test the matter in and around Boston harbour. It is not a Bell telephone, but it is a telephone from a bell. The system generally is that of submerging a bell which will be rung automatically. They have already tested this system 12 miles off the coast and succeeded in getting an absolute service from it. I think at the time when the deputy and our engineer were there, some portions did seem to be very cumbersome and difficult to handle, but since then the receiver, which was quite a large piece of machinery, has been reduced in size so that its disc is scarcely larger than an American dollar. It certainly seems to be admirably adapted not only for coastal service but perhaps for the waters of a river. I feel that we should have this matter looked into, as it is likely to be of the greatest possible benefit in warning vessels, either in entering or leaving our harbours. I hope that the minister will find it possible to make a thorough examination of this system 'which is now being worked out. I may say that on the day I came from Boston the United States navy had representatives there looking into the matter themselves.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: Under this item I would like to make a few remarks to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries about the steamer 'Stanley.' I understand the steamer now is some 12 years old, and is engaged in a very important service during the winter, plying between Summerside and Cape Tor-mentine. I have information that this boat is not in a condition to perform satisfactorily the service, and that many of her plates are in such a condition, bent in contact with the ice, as to render her efforts to a great extent inoperative. I also understand that the steamer now requires new boilers and engines. In order to make a complete success of the winter service between Summer-side and Cape Tormentine and also to make the boat suitable for the service of the fisheries during the summer season I would like to call the attention of the hon. minister to the fact that there will require to be extensive repairs made both to the hull and to the engines, and I would like to see, in the supplemeutary estimates, a sufficient sum to put this boat in condition to secure a proper service during next winter between tbe island and tbe mainland.


Edward Frederick Clarke: X want to emphasize tbe remarks which have been made by my colleague from Toronto (Mr. Osier) in regard to allegations which are made as to the inadequacy of the lighthouse, range light, and target service on the upper lakes. I was up there during the past autumn and X had conversations with more than one mariner engaged in the service on those upper lakes. I heard a great many complaints made as to the insufficiency of the service on the Georgian Bay and on Lake Superior. I am very glad to hear the statement made by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries as to the steps he purposes taking during the coming recess to improve the navigation of the waters to the east of us. I have been credibly informed that representations have been made to the department from time to time as to the insufficiency of the service on the upper lakes and X hope the hon. minister will take steps during the coming summer to make an investigation into these complaints to ascertain whether they are well founded or not, and to ascertain whether it is a fact that the lighthouses, targets and range lights which were promised years ago have not yet been undertaken or completed. I can say to the hon. gentleman that I have heard comparisons not at all favourable to Canada made respecting the efficient service given on the American coast as compared with what is claimed to be the inadequate service on our own coast. I shall content myself with drawing the attention of the minister to the complaints I have heard made and ask him to give the question of the improvement of lighting on the upper lakes more attention than it lias received for some years past.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: In reply to the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) and his colleague (Mr. Osier) I may say that there was a meeting of the lake carriers some time ago and that they furnished the department with a good deal of information together with their views on what was required in connection with this particular service on the upper lakes. I can say that provision is being made now for the establishment of four or five new lights, and I think that the hydrographic survey that we are going to undertake this summer of Lake Superior will be of very great advantage to those sailing on the upper lakes. One new boat will go up there. The matter which my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Lefurgey) has brought up will receive consideration. I am desirous and hopeful that this service should be a success, but I think he will agree with me that the businesslike and
sensible way to deal with this matter is to find out what is best to be done, to prove the practicability of the route and then to make proper provision by furnishing a boat to perform the service. I am sure that the committee will sustain me when I say that the most necessary thing now to be done is to demonstrate tlie practicability of the route. The matter is somewhat new to me, as I suppose it is to the majority of the hon. members of the House, except in a general way, and I have no desire to ask for a large expenditure of money until we have more information upon the subject. On the contrary I believe true economy is getting good value for the money expended and doing what is necessary. My utmost effort will be, before bringing down a report or asking for anything from parliament, to get the best possible information of the latest improvements in all directions. My hon. friend from Charlotte (Mr. Ganong) has referred to one, of course, there is not one of these improvements that is not referred to the department. It will be the desire of the officers of the department and myself to do everything witlnn our means to improve the route and I am of the opinion that there is nothing too good m the way of lights, sirens and whistles for tbe improvement of this service. I shall to the best of my ability get the best information there is to be had, and I hope that I may be able to start out upon some systematic plan. Of course, we cannot do all this in a few months, or perhaps one or two years, but we desire to adopt a plan that wiil receive the approval of those who know most about it and which will have the confidence of every one interested 1 making the route better.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the hon. minister if it is his intention to bring down supplementary estimates in which provision will be made to carry out some of the urgent reforms! that were asked for last year by the shipping interests 1


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I might say to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) that we expect, out of some of the estimates passed, to make a considerable improvement in the direction of the representations made to us by the shipping interests. Further, I cannot say positively at the present moment what recommendation I will bring down. Probably, if I am satisfied, that these recommendations are the best and the most practicable, 1 will, in the supplementary estimates, ask for some amount to carry out more of the work than is provided for here.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I asked the question because last year the underwriters and shippers represented to the government that the St. Lawrence route was defective from the gulf up to Montreal. The lights were bad, the lighthouses themselves were condemned, the system of signals, the sirens, wex-e pro-

nounced defective and tlie lighting of the river between Quebec and Montreal was pronounced to be very defective. It was urged that it was possible to come up from Quebec to Montreal at night by the expenditure of a reasonable amount of money for the lighting of the route. The high rates of insurance that discriminaije so greatly against the St. Lawrence route were ascribed to these obstacles and also to the defects in the pilotage system. When this matter was discussed in the House last year the predecessor of my hon. friend denied that there was sucli a need. I remember distinctly that he stated that he had on the occasion of two crossings of the Atlantic called the captains of the steamers into his room and asked them if there were any improvements to suggest along the St. Lawrence route and they had said that they really could suggest nothing. The underwriters ascribed the high rates to the causes that I have just indicated to the committee and shippers ascribed the high rates of freights to these causes also. I am sure that both sides of the House would willingly vote any amount that might be required to remove those objections to the route that were so forcibly put before us last year. The shippers held an expensive inquiry, in which the government did not take part, and we had the whole of the evidence, and a resume of the evidence, put before us. This is why I think it is very important that the question should be considered by my hon. friend and that these objections which militate so strongly against the St. Lawrence route should be removed as soon as possible.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) had been in the House when I referred to this matter he would have heard me say that I had spent several hours to-day with representatives of the shipping interests and had gone over the items of the whole route, and that they are coming on another day next week to complete the consideration of the subject. There are differences of opinion on this question, I find, among the engineers and those interested, but, by meeting together and having a good business talk, I find that they generally arrive at some practical solution in regard to the various points. We are putting in three sirens in place of fog whistles. We are putting a new light on Belle Isle, and a new siren at Fame Point, and in addition to that we are asking for tenders for a new permanent lighthouse at the Traverse which will be a very important work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I introduced this subject because of the specific assurance of the minister (Sir Louis Davies) last session that everything was perfection as regards i he lights and buoys. As to the number of casualties that took place on the Sc. Lawrence last year, it will be desirable to know Mr. MONK.
how many of these were due to preventable causes such as defective lights or buoys or want of sufficient water. The country will be glad to hear that the new Minister of Marine intends to adopt some intelligent plan to carry out this work, after consultation' with the shippers, and we suppose we may have hopes for the future. It would seem from the departmental report that there has been some carelessness in the de-partement because the buoys above Three Rivers were frozen in last year, and as the report says, they will have to be replaced at considerable expense. I find that the following reference is made in the departmental report to the chartered steamer which took the place of the ' Newfield ' :- During the season of 1900, the steamer 'New-fleld' was wrecked, and consequently the department found it necessary to charter a steamer for lighthouse and buoy service in Nova Scotia, but owing to lack of equipment necessary for lifting and placing buoys on board of the chartered steamer, the service was not as satisfactorily done as. by the 'Newfield.'
In other words, I presume there was a good deal of loss because the steamer was not properly equipped. The sooner the minister and the vessel owners of Canada get together and adopt the best possible system of lighting and buoying the St. Lawrence so as to reduce the danger of accidents and thereby reduce insurance, the better it will be for the people of the whole country. The route is getting into disrepute because of some defects, and the sooner they are remedied the better it will be.
The MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. I am afraid I will have to plead guilty to some extent for the damage done to the buoys, but I left them out at the request of the shipping interests, and perhaps I went too far to try and i lease them.


Mr. CALVIN.: You did not. You did the right thing. It was the right thing for you to do under the circumstances.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
The MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. We did the best we could, but the frost set in two weeks earlier than usual. I hope the loss will not be very great.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: There are certain places in which there is some certainty as to leaving out the buoys each year, and there are other places where	there	is great	uncertainty. It will always be necessary for the department to give some discretion to those in charge as to how long the buoys will be left out. In the county I represent there is a regulation that the buoys shall be taken in at a certain time, but it is wise in some seasons to leave them out longer. There is no human means of judging of the weather conditions during any particular year. Tt

is easier to deal with this matter in Nova Scotia than it is in the St. Lawrence, hut even in Nova Scotia the seasons vary. I congratulate the department and the minister on what has been done to aid navigation in the lower provinces. During the last five or six years more has been done to recognize the wants of the fishing and shipping interests than was ever done before. Today, take the coast of Nova Scotia from Canso to Yarmouth, and particularly from Canso to Halifax, and there never was a time when better facilities were provided for those engaged in the shipping trade. I would again point out that no definite rule can be made as to when these buoys should be taken in and that the best man to judge of that is the officer in charge in the locality. One season you have to remove them in November, and another season you may leave them out till January. The rule of ilie department used to be elastic in this respect.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is left entirely to the discretion of the minister and he can give whatever orders he likes. In so far as the buoys were left out for the purpose of testing winter navigation no complaint can be found, but these buoys which were lost were above Three Rivers, and it was not intended to test winter navigation there.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There were several belated vessels and the owners pressed very hard to have the buoys left out.


Mr. TALBOT.: In the province of Quebec winter set in this year a month earlier than usual. We had winter on the 18th of October this year and we generally do not have it until the middle of November. These buoys between Quebec and Montreal were caught in the ice and that was due to the extremely cold weather which came a month earlier than any one could have anticipated.


Hiram Augustus Calvin: There seems to be no doubt that'the minister (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) did the correct thing in allowing these buoys to remain out last fall. They were left out for the benefit of the shipping, and at the urgent request of those interested in steamers sailing from the port of Montreal. I do not know how many steamers were enabled to pass down the river because those buoys were left out so late, but even if only two or three steamers were benefited thereby, the expense caused by the loss of the buoys was a mere trifle compared with the great advantage which the shipping derived from the action of the minister. It must be a great relief to this House, as I am sure it will be to the producers and shippers of this country, to know that we have a Minister of Marine whose intentions are good, who intends to be progressive, and that we are to be no longer confronted, as we were last session, with a dead stonewall. It is satisfactory to know that we will not be met with the
invariable reply : Oh, this department is all right; it does nothing wrong; it cannot possibly be improved. We have a minister now who intends to improve it, and whether he will be able to do so or not remains to be seen. But it must be a matter of satisfaction to the hon. gentleman himself to know that he is at the head of a department which can do the greatest good for the transportation interests of this country. In his hands are the lighthouses and other aids to navigation throughout our great waterway, and as one who uses that great waterway in its western part, I shall welcome every help that can be given it by means of new lights and buoys. As a citizen of this country, and as one who is in the transportation business, I am quite convinced that the greatest barrier in the way of transportation along the St. Lawrence is the insurance rates to and from Montreal and Quebec, and more especially from Quebec to the sea. By whatever route our products may reach our seaboard, whether by rail or water, does not matter, they must all go outwards from Quebec to the gulf, and inwards, too, our trade must use that same waterway, and the hon. minister's attention must be specially directed to the improvements from Quebec to the sea, so that that part shall be made so perfectly safe that the insurance rates will fall to a minimum. It is nonsense for us to say that these insurance men charge too much. Let us make that part of the river perfectly safe and then the rates will come down.
Mr. McLennan (Inverness). I wish to make a suggestion to the hon. minister in connection with the lighting of Port Hood Harbour. The instructions last fall were that the light should be kept at the entrance of that harbour up to the 1st January. So long as that port was merely used for local business this was all right, but now its business has greatly extended. A very vigorous coal company have taken the coal mines into their hands and they are rapidly developing that property. Last January the shipping was at a considerable disadvantage owing to the fact that the lights at the entrance of the harbour were not kept in operation after the first of the month. I now throw out the suggestion to the hon. minister that sufficient supplies should be furnished the lighthouse keeper at Port Hood to keep the lights going throughout the whole season of navigation.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is a reasonable request and will be attended to.
Maintenance and repairs to lighthouses including the maintenance and pay of crew of lighthouse steamer 'Brant,' $250,000.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: In making improvements to navigation, after the first expense has been incurred with the buoys and lighthouses, the only increase, of course, is in the two items

of salaries and allowance of tlie keepers and maintenance and repairs. If parliament endorses tlie expenditure we would not he going into something blindly, because we can estimate pretty closely what tlie annual expenditure on these two items will amount to. This is the same amount as last year. Although the expenditure last year was * a little larger than the estimate, on going over the items we thought we could get through on the $250,000.


John William Bell: Is there to be anything done about building another lighthouse in the Traverse ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The plans and specifications are now prepared, and I am now considering whether I should invite tenders or take the figures from the engineer and give the work to some competent responsible contractor. It is a very important work, one that will require to be done by men of experience and responsibility.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We were informed last session that the government intended to make an effort to test the navigability of the St. Lawrence during the winter to Quebec.
Hydrographic surveys, including survey of Lake Winnipeg, $26,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You have been operating on the east side of Lake Huron. Has that work been finished 1


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I understand it has been completed, and the oflicers who were engaged in it are finishing their reports.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where is it intended to work this summer ? I understood that Lake Superior was to be surveyed. I suppose that when the reports concerning Lake Huron are needed, maps will be completed.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Certainly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What part of Lake I Superior is the work to begin at ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The head ot the hydrographic survey tells me that they will begin at the east end of Lake Superior; he is preparing his plans now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I take it you will use but one boat ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We had no boat at the disposal of the department which could do that work, but I am informed that either of the new boats we will have next season will be available.
Scientific institutions and hydrographic surveys, Magnetic Observatory, $2,700.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this the magnetic observatory that is to be built in Ottawa ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, it is in Toronto.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was intended to build one here, was it not ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes. We have a splendid steamboat.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can the minister tell us when the maps of Lake Huron will be ready and how much they will cost. Inquiries are being made of us concerning these points.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I understand that when they are prepared by our officers they are submitted to the hydrographic office of Great Britain. As soon as they return they will be printed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is very indefinite.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I believe the Department of Interior has an item for that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why have two different votes V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot answer that. It will come up in the Public Works estimate, and no doubt the information will be given.
Meteorological service, $81,953.
SPROULE. There is an increase of $1,360 here.


The MINISTER OF MARINE ANJ FISHERIES.: I think I am right in sayin that there are one or two agencies establisi ed in the west. The cost of these togethc with increases of $50 each to several of th officers recommended by Mr. Stupart, who i at the head of this service, made up the it crease.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I will make a note of the point and bring the information for the hon. gentleman.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think we have voted about a million for my hon. friend. The committee is very thin to-night, and I do not think it should be asked to sit much longer.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am well satisfied with the progress that has been made. But there are only two small items remaining in the Marine votes and I feel sure they will not be controversial, as they are the usual votes and there are no increases.
Some resolutions reported.



[Stage Direction]
Return showing :-1. Whither the government or any member thereof, by letter or other-

wise, gave any public or private assurance that in the selection of officers for the Canadian South Africa constabulary which left for South Africa last year, preference would be given to those Canadian officers who have served in South Africa and to other officers of the Canadian militia.
2.	What persons, officers or others, applied for commissions in said constabulary ? What is the military record of each, either in Canada, South Africa or elsewhere ?
3.	(a) What officers were selected and appointed ; (b) What is the military record of each ?
4.	Who of those selected as officers had never before been officers ?
5.	Whether there were enough applications from officers of the Canadian militia to officer the constabulary, and the reason for their being passed over, and men without qualifications, if there were any such, selected ?
6.	How many commissioned officers of the Canadian militia were enlisted in the first and second contingents, in the Royal Canadian regiment, the Canadian mounted infantry, the Royal Canadian dragoons, and the Canadian artillery, as (a) non-commissioned officers, and (b) as men ?
7.	How many non-commissioned officers and men of the permanent corps were enlisted in the corps named in question. How many of these were non-commissioned officers in South Africa, (c) Why were the commissioned officers enlisted in the corps as privates, not given the non-commissions.-Mr. Monk-by Mr. Sproule.
Copies of all letters, telegrams and other correspondence between the Department of Labour and the Canadian Pacific railway, Mr. John Wilson, and other parties, in respect of alleged violations of the Alien Labour Law, between June 1st, and September 1st, 1901. Also, between officers of the Immigration Department and the Canadian Pacific Railway.- Mr. Puttee.
Return of all items of expenditure during the year ended June 30, 1901, in connection with the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways respectively, charged to revenue and subsequently transferred to capital accouut, with a statement of the reasons for such transfer.-Mr. Barker.
Copies of all accounts, vouchers, reports, contracts, minutes, and other documents relating to the items of expenditure charged to revenue account, and afterwards transferred to capital account in connection with the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway, respectivey, during the year ending 30th June, 1901.-Mr. Barker.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 11.25 p,m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 28, 1902