1903-05-11

THE NORTH-WEST BANK OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
House went into Committee on Bill (No. 51) to incorporate the North-west Bank of Canada.-Mr. McCreary.
On section 1.
Mr. HENDERSON.: When this Bill was
before the Banking and Commerce Committee, its name was changed to ' The Northern Bank.' I was under the impression that the committee were of opinion that a better name would be ' The North-west Bank,' and I have been informed that such was the feeling of the committee had that name been submitted. It is a name that will better meet with the wishes of the people, and one to which I do not think the promoters would object. I therefore move that the name of the bank be changed to that of ' The North-west Bank ' instead of ' The Northern Bank,' as in the amended Bill.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This matter was referred to in the committee, and the promoter was content to accept the name ' Northern Bank,' and I do not see why we should depart from the usual custom and change a name which has been accepted by the promoter of the Bill.


David Henderson: The parties interested were perhaps not all there, and if I mistake not the name ' Northern Bank ' was accepted as a compromise. My own impression is that they would prefer the name ' North-west Bank ' to the ' Northern Bank.' If my impression be correct, I think we ought to change the name. I think they were only suggesting the name ' Northern Bank,' because they thought they were not to be allowed the name ' Northwest Bank ' ; and I offer the House the opportunity to change the name to ' Northwest Bank' instead of the other, which I do not think at all meets the wishes of the people out there. To my mind, it is not nearly so good a designation for business purposes as the name ' North-west Bank.'


Mr. ROSS (South Ontario).: I think I was the one who seriously objected to the name 'North-west Bank.' The head office of the Western Bank of Canada is in the riding I have the honour to represent. The Western Bank of Canada thought that this was rather an infringement of their name, and I think so too, and so did the committee. The promoters of the Bill were willing to accept the change of name to the ' Northern Bank instead of the 'North-west Bank.' I am still of the same opinion as before, and if the promoters were satisfied and the committee reported in favour of the change of name I do not see why there should be any objection. I think there are sufficient geographical and other names in the language to give the bank a new name entirely. I remember that when, two years ago, a bank applied to this House to be chartered under the name of ' The Empire Bank ' it was objected to by the representatives of The Imperial Bank and the name was changed to 'The Sovereign Bank.' If it has been the policy of the department, the government and parliament to protect the^ names of banks, why not make a change in this case



in order to protect the name of a bank that has already been in business for twenty years, that has served well the section in which it works, and that is now proposing to enlarge its capital and extend its operations into the North-west Territory 1 Under the circumstances, I think the name can well remain as it now stands in the Bill.


Mr. McCRBARY.: When the matter first came up in the Committee on Banking and Commerce an objection was raised to the name * North-west Bank of Canada.' I at once asked for two weeks' enlargement, and wrote to the solicitor of the provisional directors in Winnipeg on the subject. He wired me if the change in the name was to be made, to ask that it be changed to ' Northern Bank,' omitting the words ' of Canada.' I suggested that to the committee, and that was adopted, I presume that the solicitor consulted the provisional directors before he suggested this new name. In regard to the name ' Northwest Bank,' when the territories are given autonomy, as, no doubt, they will be before very long, the name would not have so much significance as at present. I think the name ' Northern Bank ' would be suitable. We have on the other side of the line very large institutions with similar titles, such, for instance, the Northern Securities Company. I think the name ' Northern Bank ' would be quite sufficient without the words ' of Canada '-just as suitable as ' Northwest Bank.'
Bill reported, read the third time, and pa ssed.



EMPIRE ACCIDENT AND SURETY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House went into Committee on Bill (No. 107) to incorporate the Empire Accident and Surety Company.-Mr. Calvert.
On section 11,
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Chas. Fitzpatrick).: I would draw the attention of the promoter to this clause. My hon. friend (Mr. Calvert) will remark that the name of the company does not contain the word ' limited,' and, under this section, section thirty-nine of the Companies Clauses Act is not applicable. That section, No. 39, reads as follows :-
The directors of the company shall be jointly and severally liable upon every written contract or undertaking of the company, on the face whereof the words ' limited' or the words * limited liability ' are not distinctly written or printed after the name of the company where it first occurs in such contract or undertaking.
So, my hon. friend will see what the incorporators are exposed to if this goes through in the present form. It would be better to have the committee rise and report progress, so that there may be an opportunity to look at this clause.


William Ross: 


Mr. CALVERT.: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 24) to extend the power of Loan Companies.-Mr. Thompson.
Bill (No. 129) respecting the Crown Bank of Canada.-Mr. Guthrie.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 135) to incorporate the Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia Railway Company.-Mr. Logan.
Bill (No. 145) respecting the Quebec Bridge Company ; and to change its name to the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company.-Mr. Power.
Bill (No. 147) respecting the Toronto and Hamilton Railway Company.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 149) to incorporate the Hamilton, Berlin and Collingwood Railway Company. -Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 150) to incorporate the Columbia River Improvement Company.-Mr. Galliber.
Bill (No. 152) to incorporate the Southern Central Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Riley.
Bill (No. 154) to incorporate the Niagara, Queenston and St Catharines Railway Company.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 157) to incorporate the Brandon, Saskatchewan and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Davis.
Bill (No. 159)) to incorporate the Canadian Yukon Western Railway Company.- Mr. Davis.
Bill (No. 160) to incorporate the Stewart River Development Company.-Mr. Davis.
Bill (No. 161) to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of the Woolf Valve Gear Company.- Mr. Belcourt.
Bill (No. 162) respecting the Hamilton and Lake Erie Power Company, and to change its name to the ' Jordan Light, Heat and Power Company.'-Mr. German.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARKE-by Mr. Hughes (Victoria) -asked :
1.	Has the government appointed any medical officers ; and if so, how many, for the purpose of inspecting immigrants entering Canada ?
2.	When were such officers apointed, and where are they stationed ?
3.	Do such officers inspect immigrants whose destination is the United States ?

4.	How many immigrants have been rejected and refused admission to land in Canada by such medical officers ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock) :: 1.	Yes ; one chief medical officer and two local medical officers.
2.	First November, 1902. Fifteentli January, 1903, and 25th April, 1903 ; the chief medical officer at St. John, N.B., with general supervision, and the two local officers at Halifax and Quebec, respectively.
3.	Yes, when necessary.
4.	Two hundred and ten.


CANE BROTHERS, NEWMARKET, ONT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BENNETT-by Mr. Hughes (Victoria) -asked :
1.	Have Cane Brothers, of Newmarket, Ontario, at any time had license to cut timber on any islands in the Georgian bay, under the authority of the Indian Department ? If so, what was the date of same and what Islands were so under license ?
2.	Did Cane Brothers, if not licensed to cut by the Indian Department, at any time cut timber on any island or islands in the Georgian bay under the control of the Indian Department. If so, when and what quantity of timber was cut by them ; and on how many islands was the same cut ; and if any cut by the said Cane Brothers, what disposition was wade of the same ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock) :: 3.	The Messrs. Cane Brothers, of Newmarket, Ontario, have not at any time had license to cut timber on any islands in Georgian bay, under the authority of the Indian Department.
2.	The Department of Indian Affairs understand that many years ago, namely about 1886, the Ontario government granted a timber license to the Georgian bay Lumber Company to cut timber on certain lands on the Georgian bay, and that Messrs. Cane became transferees of this license. Subsequently a dispute arose between the Ontario and Dominion governments as to whether these lands belonged to the Ontario or Dominion governments, and this dispute is still unsettled. The Ontario government continues to assert ownership over these lands, their licensees accounting to them. In 1894 the Dominion government endeavoured to take possession of some 940 logs cut on what is known as Baxter Island, claimed by Messrs. Cane as covered by their license and which logs they claimed were their property ; but subsequently, namely in 1894-5, the Dominion government discontinued such efforts. Since then the question of the ownership of the Islands has remained in dispute and it is presumed that the transferees of the license account to tlie Ontario government in respect of any timber cut on the lands in question.
There are a number of other disputes between the two governments as to the 87 J
ownership of other lands claimed as Indian lands, and matters arising therefrom, and negotiations are pending for the reference of all such disputes to arbitration.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-HILLSBOROUGH BRIDGE.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	What amount was paid for drawing the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Prince Edward Island, with regard to the building of the Hillsborough bridge ?
2.	To whom was the money paid ; what were the names of the parties, and amounts paid each, respectively ?
3.	Was the cost for drawing this agreement to be paid exclusively by the Dominion government, or partly by them and partly by the local government ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: No amount has been paid by the Dominion government for drawing the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Prince Edward Island for the building of Hillsborough bridge.


LEASE OF FALSE CREEK, B.C.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILSON-by Mr. Hughes (Victoria) asked :
1.	Has any portion of False Creek, Vancouver, been leased to Messrs. Burnett & Kelly T If so. what is the area so leased ?
2.	What is the duration of the lease ?
3.	What is the rental per annum ?
4.	Have any protests been received frunu any public bodies in Vancouver against tbu granting of the said lease ? If so, from whom ?
5.	Upon whose recommendation was the lease granted ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: If this question has no reference to the foreshore the answer will be as follows : No portion of False Creek reserve, Vancouver, has been leased to Messrs. Burnett & Kelly. If it belongs to the foreshore the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) will be the proper person to answer for that part of it.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: I suppose the question will then stand until the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon, Mr. Prefontaine) is in the House.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Very well.


THE ROSS RIFLE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MORIN-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	Before accepting the Ross rifle, did the Department of Militia and Defence submit the said rifle for examination and approval to experts ?
2.	If so, what are the names of those exports ?
3.	What report did they make to the department ?
4.	Is the department, or the Minister of Militia a,nd Defence, aware if the rifle in ques-
[Stage Direction]
tion has been offered to the imperial government or to that of the United States, and with what result ?
The PRIME MINISTER (lit. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) :: 1.	Yes, to a board of officers.
2.	Colonel W. D. Otter, president. Members :	Colonel J. M. Gibson, Lieutenant


Colonel W.   P.@: Anderson, Lieutenant Colonel Sam Hughes. M.P., Major F. M. Gaudet.
3.	The report is that the rifle has features which are a positive advantage over the Lee-Enfield.
4.	No.


TRANS-CANADA RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILMOT-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
Has the government entered, into any contract with the Trans-Canada Railway Company for the construction of any portion of its line, and have the plans and profiles of the same been deposited with the government ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: No contract has been entered into by the government with the Trans-Canada Railway Company, but the company have sent to the department plans of two short sections of the line, one ten miles from Nelson river westward, and the other twenty miles from same point eastward.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-TRAFFIC ARRANGEMENT WITH GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. KEMP-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	At what point, or points, does the interchange of freight traffic between the liter-colonial Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway take place ?
2.	Is there an agreement in existence in respect to the apportionment of earnings ; and what is the nature of such agreement, and the date of same ?
3.	What are the proportions earned by each company for freight transferred from the Grand Trunk to the Intercolonial, and vice versa, in all cases ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	At Montreal, St. Hyacinthe and Chau-diere Junction.
2.	There is an understanding as to the apportionment of rates. But further information to reply to this question is being asked for from Moncton.


VALLEYFIELD STRIKE, 1900.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MORIN-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	Was there a strike of the employees in the cotton mills at Valleyfield in the fall of 1900, just previous to the election in that constituency ?
2.	By whom was it provoked ?
3.	Was Mr. King, the Deputy Minister of Labour, sent to Valleyfield to try to settle the strike 1 If so, by whose order was he sent ?
4.	What did he accomplish ?
5.	Did the employees of the cotton mills secure higher wages ?
Mr. MORIN.: 6.	Were the militia ordered out there ?
7.	If so, what was the cost of the troops ?
8.	By whom was the said cost paid ?
9.	Has the town of Valleyfield paid the costs ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	On October 22nd some 200 labourers engaged on excavation work for the Montreal Cotton Company at Valleyfield went on strike for higher wages, and the strike of the employees in the cotton mills followed on the evening of the 26th, being of the nature of a protest against the bringing in of two companies of infantry from Montreal at the request of the company for protection against certain acts of the striking labourers.
3.	Mr. King, deputy minister of Labour, was sent to Valleyfield by order of the Minister of Labour on receipt of a request dated October 26th, from the secretary of the ' Union Ouvriere,' that the government send a representative to Valleyfield in connection with the strike. On receipt of the communication from the secretary, the Minister of Labour immediately telegraphed to the solicitor of the company, the secretary of the union and the Mayor of Valleyfield, offering the friendly intervention of the Department of Labour, and the deputy minister proceeded at once to Valleyfield.
4.	A full account of the negotiations conducted by the deputy minister while at Valleyfield, and their results will be found at page 102 of the issue of the ' Labour Gazette ' for November, 1900.
5.	No.
6.	As above stated, the Mayor of Valleyfield made a requisition for the services of the militia on October 25th, at the request of the company, and two companies of infantry arrived in Valleyfield from Montreal that night.
7.	8 and 9. The Department of Labour has no information on the subjects referred to in these questions.


SOUTH AFRICAN W'AR-PURCHASE OF SUPPLIES.
Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN (Halifax) moved for :
Copies of all Orders in Council, and all correspondence between the Imperial government, or any departmental officer thereof, and the government of Canada, or any department, or officer thereof ; and all reports respecting the purchase in Canada, by or through the government of Canada, or any department, or officer thereof, of any horses, hay, oats, material, supplies, animals, or merchandise, for the imperial government, or any department, or officer thereof, during the years 1900, 1901, and 1902.
He said :	Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister
of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) informed me that he had no objection to make to the passing of this motion, provided it was amended so as to read as follows :
Copies of all Orders in Council, and all correspondence in connection therewith, respecting

the purchase in Canada, by or through the government of Canada, or any department, or officer thereof, of any horses, hay, oats, material, supplies, animals, or merchandise, for the imperial government, or any department, or officer thereof, during the years 1900, 1901, and 1902.
I am perfectly willing, for tlie present, to put the motion in that way, provided it may not be held as an estoppel in case I wish to move for any papers that may" be covered by the words which are struck out. I do not exactly appreciate the difference between the motion as proposed by me and the motion as amended at the suggestion of the lion. Minister of Finance, but with that understanding, I have no objection to let it go in this form at present, and when the papers are brought down, I will understand better what is proposed to be covered by the motion as amended.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) reading the motion as I gave it to him ?


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Yes, exactly.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That will be satisfactory. On a previous occasion on this question, I was asked across the floor of the House if the government had managed this business for the imperial government, and I replied that while we were aware that the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) was lending his friendly assistance to the imperial government in this matter, practically it was not dealt with as a Canadian government matter at all. I want to qualify that statement now to a certain extent. I found afterwards, on looking over the papers, that at the first stage an Order in Council was passed which virtually assisted with the credit of the government of Canada in the first steps that were taken. After a short time operations took a different form, the imperial government provided the funds, and the whole transaction from that time forward was conducted as an imperial government transaction. I find it is necessary to make this qualification, because, at the first stage, an Order in Council was passed authorizing advances to be made by the bank. Of course, we had no power to authorize advances, but the assurance that the Canadian government was behind the transaction undoubtedly had its effect with the bank at the beginning, but at a later stage, and as respects probably four-fifths of the whole transaction, that would not apply. I think in view of the answer which I gave to the question put by the hon. member for Both-well (Mr. Clancy) I should make this explanation, because the statement I then made was not exactly correct.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: Before the motion carries I would like to know, if under this motion as it now reads, we will have all the operations that took, place
between the imperial government and the Department of Agriculture here; all the purchases of oats, hay, provisions, &c.; or, -are four-fifths of these operations going to be kept from our knowledge ? As I understand the statement made by the Minister of Finance, the transactions began by an advance on credit given by the Canadian government, and under which a part of these supplies were purchased. These, as I understand the Minister of Finance, we are entitled to under this motion as altered. But, four-fifths of the transactions having taken place under advances made by the imperial government-perhaps direct to the Minister of Agriculture or to somebody employed in the Agriculture Department- four-fifths of these transactions will not be taken cognizance of under the present amended motion. I do not think that is right; I think we should have the whole of them.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The motion as amended in the suggestion I made to the leader of the opposition, and which he for the moment has accepted, is designed to cover the Orders in Council and papers of the character which are referred to, and anything which relates to the transaction on the part of the Canadian government. But it is not contemplated at present that we shall bring down accounts of the expenditures, because practically no expenditures were made by the Canadian government. An Order in Council was passed in the beginning on which the banks were assured that the government of Canada would see them through this transaction. Of course, we had no legal authority to advance moneys to the imperial government. That Order in Council was given and there was a moral assurance-there could be no legal assurance-but there was a moral assurance given by the Canadian government at that first stage. It was then expected the accounts would have to be dealt with as Canadian accounts, and I think, speaking from memory, it was provided that the accounts should be submitted to the Auditor General. Subsequently, however, that was not carried out. The whole transaction was managed as an imperial transaction. In the form in which the motion will pass, it will call for the Orders in Council which have been passed on the subject, and the papers in connection therewith, but it is not contemplated to include in that order the accounts for the purchases that were made.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


TOWNSHIPS OF MARA, RAMA AND MORRISON-FLOODING OF LANDS.
Mr. GEO  D.@: GRANT (North Ontario) moved for :
Copies of all reports, corespondence, petitions and papers, filed in the Department of

Public Works, or other department, in the matter of the lowering or regulating of the water of Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching ; and the relieving of lands in the townships of Mara, Rama and Morrison, from floods occasioned by the overflow of said lakes.
He said : I desire to direct tlie attention of the ministry to a grievance of long standing affecting the three townships mentioned in the motion and which are situated in the north riding of the county of Ontario. These three townships of Mara, Rama and Morrison, are every spring more or less flooded by the overflow of Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching. Those townships are adjacent to and lying east of the lakes; they are low-lying lands and difficult to drain. In these three townships the grievance has been felt severely for years, in as much as the community is depending more and more on agriculture, the pine and wood being practically cut out. Many years ago when the lumber industry was still thriving in that section the inconvenience and loss was not so manifest. The township of Mara has spent several thousand dollars for drainage in the last ten years; the provincial government has also lent its aid, and large drains across the township have been dug to Lake Simcoe; these have proved Ineffectual. The difficulty is this, that in the late winter and early spring the lakes overflow the lowlands and on their receding, leave a considerable depth of water on these lowlands towards the interior of the township. Drainage is difficult, and this water lies on the surface often until the month of June, and, In a wet season, all summer. During some seasons in the past it has been utterly impossible for a number of the farmers to get in their crop, because of this.
As to the filling up or narrowing of the outlet from Lake Couchiching into the Severn river, an artificial obstruction has been put in on the west branch of the Severn river and contributes to the trouble. On the centre branch of the river, is a dam which also is a factor. These outlets can be so improved or enlarged to regulate the water of the lakes, particularly in the spring of the year.
It is represented by persons affected, that if the surplus water was let off in the early spring, before the spring freshets, the overflow would not take place, in fact the agitation is for the regulation rather than the lowering of the lakes. In the past when this matter has been discussed, some opposition was offered by the lumbermen who operated on these waters and also by vessel owners. There can now be no objection from these sources for lumber operations have ceased, nor are there any mills depending for their power on the depth of water at the immediate outlets. As regards navigation, the objection is not well taken, because by a proper system, the freshets can be let off and artificial barriers placed Mr. GRANT.
at the outlet and the water kept up to the mark where navigation would be safe and easy. Besides that, considerable dredging has of late been done in the channel or narrows between the two lakes, and in other shallow places, insuring greater safety and ease for vessels.	-
The county of Ontario has suffered for many years severely, from this matter; the annual loss is hard to determine, but it is undoubtedly true that lands worth in the neighbourhood of $100,000 are, in many years, rendered wholly unremunerative to their owners. The land itself is excellent and if relieved of the floods, would add greatly to the wealth of the townships.
As long as these annual floods occur, the thorough drainage of the township is practically impossible, inasmuch as a great part of the area affected is either below or on an equal level with Lake Simcoe.
The township of Rama is also a heavy sufferer, more particularly through the flooding of the Black river and some of the smaller lakes which drain into the Severn; the cause is practically the same; in fact the one remedy in the enlarging of the outlet and regulating the outflow, would he an enormous benefit to the three townships mentioned. The residents themselves have done a great deal and have been at great expense towards rectifying the evil and are very much in earnest in pressing the matter on the government's attention. I feel quite sure that a competent engineer can solve the difficulty and with small expenditure comparatively, when the amount of benefit to accrue is considered.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: I would have thought that the works referred to might come more properly under the jurisdiction of the province. However, there is no objection at all to the resolution, and the matter seems to be so important that I will have a careful investigation and a report made upon it by the engineer of the department.


Samuel Hughes: I may say that this matter was before the House some years ago. It is entirely under the jurisdiction of the federal authorities, inasmuch as it forms a part of the route of the Trent canal. I can assure the minister and the hon. gentleman who has made the motion that there is very little land flooded, and no damage has been done, and that much opposition will come from the municipalities along the southern shores of the lakes, especially those in the counties of York and Simcoe, against lowering the waters of these lakes below their normal level. The obstructions in the river Severn were removed some years ago, as will be found on reference to the department, and, so far as can be ascertained, there is no cause of complaint at the present time. If any attempt is made, such as was made

some years ago, to have these waters lowered, below their normal level, very serious opposition will be offered by the vast majority of the people all around the lakes, and those who would be benefited can be numbered on the fingers of one hand. Motion agreed to.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND WINTER COMMUNICATION.
Mr.  A. A.@: LEFURGEY (East Prince, P.E.I.) moved for :
Copies of petitions, engineers' reports, estimates and correspondence, in reference to the building of a pier at or near Carlton Point, Prince county. Prince Edward Island, in connection with promoting the efficiency of winter communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland.
He said : I understand that two petitions have been forwarded to the Governor Geu-eral for the construction of a pier at or near Carlton Point on the Prince Edward Island side of the Northumberland Straits, for the better carrying out of the winter service between the island and the mainland. These petitions, I understand, have been numerously signed by prominent people all over the island, and I shall take the liberty of reading to the House the resolutions on which they are based. The following resolutions were passed at a mass meeting held at Emerald, on February 5th, 1903.
To His Excellency, the Governor General in Council :-
May It please Your Excellency :
The memorial of the undersigned inhabitants of Prince Edward Island hereby showeth :
That the life and prosperity of a province is largely dependent upon its system of communication with the outside world ;
That ' continuous communication ' was a principal condition of Prince Edward Island entering into the Canadian confederation at all ;
That great loss and inconvenience have resulted to us as a province because of such communication not having been kept up, as a consequence of our not having united long ago on the shortest, easiest and most continuous way of such communication ;
That distance in the matter of a winter route is, other thingb equal, a prime factor in its adoption to the public service ; and that the route between the capes-Tormentine and Traverse-offers immeasurably the shortest, and we believe all things considered, the mqst regular and expeditious way as that which we are forced to have recourse to in extremity for mails and passengers, even with open boats ;
Therefore, consonantly to a resolution passed at a mass meeting held at Emerald on the 5th day of February last, which reads as follows [DOT] Resolved that this mass meeti.g of islanders do hereby urge upon the government as of absolute and pressing necessity the mmediate construction of a pier at or near Carlton Head, on this side of the strait, and father ' Resolved that the department in cha.?e be requested to push to its completion at one. the necessary dredging at the Tormentine pier for the safe docking of steamers and also to pi->-ceed with the construction of such other work.
as may be essential to the safe, speedy and efficient navigation of the strait between the -capes-its natural ferry-winter and summer.' We respectfully ask that a sufficient sum be placed in the estimates at the next session of parliament to secure to us these necessary works and give Prince Edward Island that communication it has a right to under the terms of confederation.
And your memorialists will ever pray.
The other petition was circulated in Sum-merside and throughout the west and I will take the liberty of reading it also :
To His Excellency the Governor General in . Council :
May it please Your Excellency :
The memorial of the undersigned humbly showeth :
That a petition emanating from a public meeting held at Emerald, Prince Edward Island, on the 5th February, has been extensively signed, requesting that a pier be constructed at or near Carlton Head on the island side of the Strait of Northumberland, and that such dredging and other works as may be essential to the safe, speedy and efficient navigation of the strait between the said capes-' its natural ferry summer and winter'-be constructed forthwith ;
That your memorialists respectfully desire to dissent from that portion of said petition which refers to the summer service, knowing as we do that the present Summerside-Point. du Chene route, with its safe, natural harbours is more direct, has better connections, occupies less time, and in regard to distance is shorter as a summer route than that from any station on the Prince Edward Island Railway to Painsee or any point west on the Intercolonial Railway than the capes route ;
That in other respects your memorialists fully concur in the prayer of the said petition.
Your memorialists therefor respectfully ask that a sum sufficient be placed in the estimates at the next session of parliament to secure such necessary works as may be required for said winter service to be operated in conjunction with Summerside harbour when the latter is navigable.
The causes which have led up to these petitions are well known to this House. You know the difficulties under which we have suffered for years, culminating in the disaster of last winter, and it is to avoid a repetition of such mistakes that the petitions are presented to this House. This is not a new scheme. A petition was presented last year, signed by some 800 names, and the Minister of Public Works then promised that the matter would receive attention. He said :
I am very thankful for the information given me, and will give more attention than ever to this important question. If it be true, as I hope it is, the communication between the island and the mainland can be shortened to eight miles, there is no government which can refuse to undertake that work, but there must be some obstacle in the way or it would have been done long ago. However, we are in a century of progress, and I will give my best attention to the statements just made. I will have my officers go again into that important question, and if it can be done, I will pledge myself to do it.

Unfortunately, we have not got the then Minister of Public Works with us. We are changing ministers around so fast that the promises of one will not hold apparently for the next one. However, the matter now comes before you, supported by these two petitions and the experience of last winter, and I hope something will be done. Before dealing directly with the subject matter of these petitions, I want to go back over recent history in connection with the terms of union, by which we were to have efficient steam service between the island and the mainland, winter and summer, thus placing the island in continuous communication with the Intercolonial Railway, and the railway system of the Dominion. Only a year or two ago a claim was made for the nonfulfilment of these terms, and a part payment for nonfulfilment of $30,000 annually was granted to the island.
I may say, judging by the experience of last year and the failures of business people on the island owing to that experience and the general set back thereby caused our commercial interests, that $50,000 per year, if this thing continues, will fall very far short of in any way compensating for the damage which will be caused each year to our people commercially. One would have expected that, after admitting its failure to carry out the terms of confederation, the government would have used every means possible to give us the continuous communication we require, but instead they have been getting further away from that desired end. It is not very agreeable to us to have to press this matter on the attention of the House year after year, but we are only demanding our rights. I for one do not like to be getting up here session after session and calling the attention of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries to this important question, but at the same time I feel that I would lie derelict in my duty to the people I represent and to this Dominion if I did not do so. Hast year was the worst in the history of the island as regards winter communication since confederation, all circumstances considered, and if the government persist In neglecting to carry out its obligations, the results will be still more disastrous to the interests of Prince Edward Island and the people of the mainland who are depending on the island's products. There are two winter boats, the 'Stanley' and the 'Minto,' which perform the winter service. As far back as the time of Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, when the Pictou route was packed with ice during certain seasons, we advocated the Summerside and Cape Tormentine route, but there was always a pull in the eastern end of the island against the western. The objection was raised that there was not sufficient water in Summerside harbour, and that the ' Stanley ' when performing her summer service would lie in the offing. When the Hon.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: Sir Louis Davies was Minister of Marine this same objection was pressed, and it was not until the fall of 1900 that the 'Stanley' finally came to Summerside. It was then found that there was just as much water, and even more, in Summerside harbour than on Pictou Bar. In 1900 the service was impeded in an unusual way. The scare of small pox at the Cape was raised, and the boat was taken away to Charlottetown, so that on account of these interruptions, the service did not receive a fair test. In the fall of 1901, we again had the ' Stanley' put on the route between Summer-side and Cape Tormentine, and she made more round trips during the same time she was on that route than did the 'Minto' on the other route, and that despite the fact that no preparations were made for her coming either at the Cape or Summerside. There was no loading preparation made either at the Cape or Summerside harbour, and no information as to when the boat would run or how she would run, or whether she might not be taken off the route at any time, as was done in the previous year. There was continual bungling of the service, and yet she gave better service than was performed by the 'Minto' between Charlottetown and the mainland, and the test was acknowledged as satisfactory. I have no doubt that the hon. Minister of Marine of last year (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) will testify to the fact that the trial service between Summerside and Cape Tormentine was in all respects successful. I now come to last winter's operations. One would naturally suppose that when the government had found out that this route was feasible and gave satisfaction, one of the government steamers would have been commissioned for that service before the harbour froze up. But instead of the 'Stanley' being sent to Summerside when the summer service was over, it was not until some time later that she put in an appearance there. It is but natural to suppose that trade will flow along the line of the service which the people expect to be kept up. The time when the summer service ceases is the most important of the year. It is just then that the people are getting in their fall importations and exporting most of their produce, and that was the time that the government should have lad that boat in Summerside ready to t*ke up the winter service, and the shippers should have had every facility for usins that route as would have been afforded them had any private company undertaken the work. But instead there was do information given the public. The Northumberland steamer of the summer service made her last trip on December the 10*>, and the 'Stanley' did not put in an appearance until December the 18th. so that the shippers were ignorant as to which wav to send their shipments. A great deal of f.eight had been sent to Cape Tormentine, and, contrary to the shippers' instructions,

this freight was carried all the way round by Georgetown, thus costing the shippers an undue amount of freight. Nor were any proper arrangements made with the New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island railways, and there was a lot of shuffling for more than a month before any decided freight arrangements were made in this regard. The hour of departure of the boat was ill-advised. It left at eleven a.m., when there was only a half day to load and unload and get back In day time, when instead the boat should have been away by seven o'clock in the morning and have a chance to discharge freight and get back by daylight. Neither was any information given to the travelling public that the 'Stanley' was in commission on this service. The Boston and Maine Railway Company had to send down a man to find out whether the service was really being carried on at all. The excuse was given for the boat not being ready to take up the service on time that there was no coal, and that the government were waiting for coal in Pic-tou. But is it not absurd that the department should urge the excuse that they had no coal for their steamers at a time when the harbour was freezing up ? Why, they could have got plenty coal at Summer-side or could have brought it by train to Cape Tormentine and have had a continuous supply there, and the coal would not have cost them more than a dollar a ton extra. But for the sake of one dollar a ton, the service was broken, the shippers did not know which way to ship, and things were all in confusion. The freight to be carried on that route would have amply repaid the one dollar per ton extra in coal. Again, up to the time the boat was put on the service the agent of the Marine Department in Charlottetown could not give any information as to whether the boat was going to run on this route at all. Remarks have been made in this House about the service having proved a failure this year. To refute this criticism, let me just give the House a record of the work done by the 'Stanley' each day until she was unfortunately caught in the ice off of Summerside harbour :
The ss. ' Northumberland ' made last trip from this port December 10, 1902.
December 18, 1902. The ss. ' Stanley ' arrived about 10 a.m., from Pictou. At 1 p.m., left for Tormentine in a snowstorm laid outside Summerside light all night. Next morning, 19th, proceeded to Tormentine (without returning to Summerside to take passengers that arrived on evening train, who had to stay in Summerside till the 20th), returning about 4.20 p.m.
"	20. Left for Tormentine with local
mail, returning 21st without any mail.
"	22. Made round trip, returned about
1.15	p.m. No mail coming.
"	23. Made round trip, returned about
1.15	p.m. No mail coming.
December 24. Made round trip, returned about
3.15	p.m. No mail coming.
"	25. Made round trip, returned about
3.15	p.m. Mail both ways.
"	26. Did not cross. Went outside
harbour and returned.
"	27. Made round trip, returned about
4	p.m., with mails.
"	28. Sunday at wharf.
"	29. Made round trip, returned about
5	p.m., with mails.
"	30. Made round trip, returned about
3. p.m., with mails.
"	31. Made round trip, returned about
4.30 p.m., with mails.
January 1, 1903. Made round trip (change of time), leaving, returned 4.30 p.m. Mails.
"	2.	Made round trip (change of time),
leaving, returned 3 p.m. Mails.
"	3.	Made round trip (change of time),
leaving, returned 3 p.m. Mails.
"	4.	Sunday at wharf."	5.	Made round trip, returned about
2.25 p.m. Mails.
"	6.	Made round trip, returned about
3.30. Mails.
"	7.	Did not cross."	8.	Snowstorm went outside harbour
and returned at 11 a.m.
"	9.	Left at 9.30 a.m., returned to Tormentine over night. Returned on the 10th about 11.15.
"	11. Sunday at wharf.
"	12. Left about 7 a.m., in a gale of
wind from west and very cold. Should have laid at wharf.
She should have laid at the wharf all this day, which was one of the worst days of the year, with the barometer showing that we were going to have very heavy weather. The captain went out contrary to the advice of his pilot and mate. He was caught outside in the gale that was threatening and that was on him even before he went out. Ho was caught in the running ice and was carried down against the board ice. We will let this pass as possibly an error of judgment. No one will deny that the service up to this time could be a better vindication of this route as regards the number of crossings, and if the department had used judgment and had boats at proper season and freight arrangements and time of leaving arranged, it would be hard to improve. Now, take the history of the boat from that time. It will show to this House still further the neglect of the government in failing to provide for this service. I have already shown how they failed to have the boat on the route, and now I am going to point out that the whole blame for breaking up the winter service is with the department and the government. She was caught there on the twelfth, and lay there ten days, and during that time not a single effort was made by the government to move her. About the tenth day, as representative of East Prince-she was lying outside of Summer-side harbour where I live-in company with the official port-warden who is the representative of the fourth district in the

local legislature, the mayor of the town, and the stipendiary magistrate, I drove out to the vessel. We ordered about a dozen men with implements to find out the condition the vessel was in aud what means should be taken for her release. The official port-warden said to the captain :	Your
ship is in a dangerous condition, the ice will break up inside of you, and you will be carried out; but, as things are, she can be cut into the harbour. The captain replied : I will not spend a dollar on getting her in. We asked the captain to call for assistance from the shore, but he would not do so. He said : My vessel is safe. We set the men to work to find out the best means to release the steamer and the thickness of the ice jam in which she was locked-leading into Summerside harbour-I wish to give the House the measurements of the ice on that day. The first seven yards there was thirteen feet of lully and raft ice at the bow; the next thirty-four yards there were three feet of ice; the next fifty yards, one and one-quarter feet of ice; the next sixty yards, two feet-six inches of ice; the next eight yards, live feet of ice; the next one hundred yards, three feet of ice, the next one hundred yards, one and one-half feet of ice; and for the next three hundred yards, ice hardly safe to drive a horse upou-not one foot thick. Yet the report has been made and members will rise here and state, and even the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has represented that she was in board ice fourteen feet thick. The condition of the ice was such as I have stated. Yet that boat remained with freight and passengers aboard, with freight piling up on both ends, for ten days and not an effort made by the government to get her out. We reported the condition of the ice, and yet the captain would do nothing. We held a meeting of the board of trade and decided that we would put our hands in our own pockets and send men out next day to commence cutting her out. We sent thirty men out the next day. They did not make much headway, because they were late in getting ready. That very same right, there was a gale of wind off shore, and the steamship went adrift in the raft ice where she had been lying for ten days without an effort being made to move her. I believe that throughout all that time the agent of the marine department did not even go to investigate her condition. It was left to private parties to do what was done, and private parties had to pay the bill. On the fifth of February a mass meeting was held at Emerald and a petition was prepared as before set out; we also immediately wired the department to ask that something should be done to release the ' Stanley.' With the red tape and humbugging of the department, it was two or three days before anything was done to try to get her clear. On the twelfth of February the ' Minto ' was sent to her relief. The ' Minto,' meantime, Mr. LEFURGEY.
as I shall point out, could not perform her service on the eastern route on account of ice in Pictou harbour; so, she was sent to the relief of the ' Stanley.' On February 28th, the ' Minto ' broke her propeller blade. Captain Brown, about that time reported that the boat could not be released from the ice until about the end of April. That was reported to the department. I claim that she could have been released from the ice when she was outside Summerside harbour, and people competent to give an opinion, who were there and saw the position of the vessel and the condition of the ice, said she could have been released within three days if the proper means at hand had been set to work to cut her into the harbour. Had this been done there was hardly a day from that time until the spring of the year, when the boat could not have performed the service on that route. On March 12th, the government having failed to do anything, the board of trade of Charlottetown took hold of the case. By this time the vessel had drifted over fifty miles and was frozen in near Pictou Island. These parties took hold of her, and the 17tli the boat was liberated at a cost of $1,200. The expenditure necessary to release her, had it been made at the proper time, would have saved many failures in Prince Edward Island, and the service to and from the Island could have been carried on. There need have been no such blocking of the service as there was but for the neglect, the culpable neglect of the department and the government. It was not, as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries says, not as the hon. member for Pictou would have you believe, because the boat was in the ice, or because the ' Miuto ' broke her propeller in trying to relieve the ' Stanley,' nor, indeed, as the hon. member for King's, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes), would represent, from both boats not being on the eastern end, but because the government failed to perform the duty of having the ' Stanley ' released when that might have been done, when she lay for ten days off Summerside harbour.
Now, what all this means to the people of Prince Edward Island, perhaps the members of this House cannot readily realize. Farming operations have changed in the island during the past fifteen years, and the people have gone into the raising of dairy products, butter, eggs and prepared meats, and working up a trade in the hope that they would be able to depend upon a winter service. Our winter business was being carried out at Sydney, and Halifax and on the mainland generally, while a great many of our shippers had prepared to carry on an extensive business with the old country. But this set-back of last winter has paralyzed the whole trade of the island, and as I said before, has resulted in the failure of not a few of our merchants. There were thousands of dollars worth of fish waiting for shipment at Georgetown that had to be

thrown into the fields. I understand that these same gentlemen who had a right to depend upon this service being fulfilled, when the 1 Minto ' had several times failed to take their produce across to Pictou, are looking for some remuneration from the government on account of their products being spoiled at the port of Georgetown while waiting shipment. I sincerely hope that the government will take their claims in hand and give them some relief in this matter.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the way in which the service was performed in giving us ' continuous communication between the island and the mainland ' last winter. I want to point out to this House that the necessity devolves upon this government of providing at once another winter boat to carry on that service. The Canadian trade returns show that the winter trade of the Dominion of Canada is very nearly as large as the summer trade. For the months of *Tuly, August and September. 1901-02, the imports were $48,782,832 ; and for January, February and March, $45,743,796. The exports for the three summer mouths I have named, were $55,948,525, and for the three winter months, $31,554,434. It will be seen, therefore, that the winter trade of the Dominion is nearly as large as the summer trade. We have no means of telling just what proportion the island contributed to this trade, but it stands to reason that if facilities were provided for the island during the winter season, her winter trade would be almost as much as her summer trade. In fact, this can be readily shown from the position of the island in respect of transportation facilities in summer. We have two steamers of the Steam Navigation Company making daily trips with full cargoes ; we have the Plant line making two trips a week ; we have two steamers of the Black Diamond Line, two of the Dobell Line, and one of the Quebec Steamship Company ; we have the City of Ghent between Halifax and Sydney ports, and we have sometimes a direct steamer to Great Britain to carry away our products during the summer, besides numerous other small craft that are continually in operation. Now it stands to reason, that it requires all these boats to do our service in the summer time, we want increased facilities for our winter service. At the time the * Stanley ' commenced running with the ' Minto ' they got along fairly well, but since the trade has been growing, the ' Minto ' and ' Stanley ' are not able to perform the service satisfactorily, and it will require another boat of much larger carrying capacity and better suited to cope with the ice conditions, in order to do the trade of the island.
Now, I have placed before you the demands of the people of the island for relief. I think the Department of Marine and Fisheries understands very well that the ' Stanley,' which is now fifteen years old, when she went last year to perform
that service between Summerside and Cape Tormentine, was not in a condition to be put on the route. It was easy to see that the plates of that vessel were indented in many places, and when she got into a jam of ice, it was almost impossible for her to back out. The attention of the department was called to her condition last year, and they were asked to make repairs to the boat, but now she is in a much worse condition than before. It behooves the present government at once to set about acquiring a new boat, because the ' Stanley ' is practically unfit for the service.
Now, there were some special features in regard to the performance of this service ; for instance, the matter of special trains to meet the winter boats and transfer the passengers and mails to their destinations. Time and again, as the boats arrived at Summer-side or Georgetown with perhaps two or three days' mail and thirty or forty passengers, we could not get a special train to carry these mails and passengers to Charlottetown. And time and again private individuals had to put their hands in their pockets to pay for these trains. I know myself of one occasion when the vessel came over with thirty or forty passengers and the mails we had to wire to Charlottetown to the board of trade, and one of the bon. members for Charlottetown had to fake the money out of his own pocket to pay for a special train. We not only had to put up the money to get a special train for passengers, but our special train had to carry His Majesty's mails free. More than that there has been wrangling going on between the Post Office Department and the Railway Department, and the Minister of Railways and Canals got up in his seat when this question was up some weeks ago, and said this was the first time he had heard of it. I can take up ' Hansard ' of last year or the year before and point out where he acknowledged that our complaints were justified, and he promised to remedy them. There is no excuse the department can offer for inflicting this inconvenience upon the people, and there is no excuse for this wrangling between the Department of Railways and Canals and the Post Office Department as to which is responsible for carrying the mails, or to which department the expense should be charged.
Then there is the Capes route. At the time when two boats were locked in the ice, the Capes service was not ready. I have in my hand a paper stating a case where $150 was paid by two travellers to carry baggage from the island to the mainland :


Mr.  J. A.@: Thompson, of P. Garneau Ills & Co., of Quebec, and W. F. Maeoun, of Hodgson, Sumner & Co., Montreal, who have been delayed for some time on account of the tie-up of the winter steamers, came to the city from Georgetown this morning and leave to-day for the Capes, where they have made arrangements by telegram with Captain Allan to transport their trunks across to-morrow morning. It

will require six boats and the cost of each traveller will be upwards of $75. These gentlemen have now been delayed upwards of two weeks waiting for winter steamers.
I know for a fact myself, having had to cross by the Cape when the boats were tied up, that there were not enough boats in the government service to carry the baggage and passengers offering. I do not know whether the member for King's, Prince Edward Island (Mr. Hughes), is prejudiced against this route from local feelings and is actuated with a desire to try and throw cold water upon it, but we are advocating it in the belief that it is the best possible place for communication between the island and the mainland. The hon. gentleman points out that if you put two boats on the Georgetown route satisfactory communication will be ensured. The principal reasons why the Summerside-Cape Tormen-tine route has been advocated and tested were because it has been found that for the last thirty years there were times in each year when the steamers were locked out of either Georgetown or Pictou for days at a time. The board of trade in Charlottetown in 1898 sent a resolution to the government with the following complaint :
During each winter it invariably happens that for several weeks, owing to the ss. ' Stanley ' being unable to make regular crossings in the severest weather on account of heavy ice, the mails have been transferred to the capes routes.
That is why we advocate the Cape route and that is why the hon. member for Queen's, Prince Edward Island (Mr. Farqu-harson) advocated the Cape route and the building of a pier at Carlton point last year. That is why the representative people put their names to this petition. It has been known for thirty years that there are times when you cannot get into or get out of Pictou harbour. There are certain times of the year when under certain conditions Pictou harbour is inaccessible. It is impossible either to get in or out of that harbour. If yon will glance at the map you will see that Pictou harbour is not very well situated geographically for a winter port. The harbour opens to the north-east. Due north of tlie harbour and distant seven or eight miles from Pictou, lies Pictou Island, extending four or five miles in an east and west direction, and forming a bay within, which is open to the full force of the northwest and especially to the north-east winds. During a winter like the present, the prevailing winds are north-west, north and north-easterly, and these have packed the bay with hard ice, only take this year's experience of Pictou and it will be seen the Minister of Marine and Fisheries does not understand or has been misinformed when he states that the trouble resulted from the ' Minto ' going to the relief of the ' Stanley,' and that had both boats been on eastern routes, continuous communication would have been Mr. LEFURGEY,
assured. Look at the facts and the records, which show that on February 2, the ' Minto ' became frozen in at Pictou. She made no attempt to get out until the 7th, when she succeeded in working her way to a point three miles beyond the lighthouse, and was obliged to return. The captain reported that, ' it will be impossible to move until there is a strong southwest wind and high tide.' On the 8th, 9th and 10th she was unable to move. On the 11th she reached Georgetown. On the 12th she got back to Pictou. On the 13th she could not get out. On the 14th she left Pictou. On the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th she fought her way from Pictou harbour to a point five miles east of Pictou Island, a little east of her regular course. At this time the ' Stanley ' was off Arisag. The two steamers retained these positions until the 25th, when the ' Minto ' succeeded in coaling the ' Stanley.' During all this time it is admitted by those in a position to know, that Pictou harbour was inaccessible and it is a well known fact that when the * Stanley ' towed the ' Minto ' to Pictou on Tuesday, March 17, she encountered a belt of ice at the entrance to the harbour whicli had to be blown up with dynamite before she succeeded in forcing her way through. So that Pictou harbour at all times of the year cannot be counted upon to give us regular communication, while, if we use the two routes we can generally count upon a fairly good service. I do not intend to go into the merits of the Cape Traverse and Cape Tormentine route. I pointed out the advantages of these routes two years ago as regards distance, and as regards the condition of the ice. There is hardly a time that they could not cross at that place and I am assured by experienced men who are familiar with the conditions there, that if proper landing facilities were provided, a service could be carried on much more regularly there than at present.
There is no doubt in my mind that a tunnel would be a feasible scheme, that it would put an end to this bickering over the winter service for all time to come. While the funds of this Dominion are rolling in so plenteously and we arc spending millions in improving the west, building railways and giving subsidies, I cannot see why the government does not take this matter seriously in hand and have an investigation made. It could only be a matter of $10,000,000 or $12,000,000 and surely the east is entitled to some consideration while so much attention is being given to the west. We have no complaint to make about the development of the west, or about the money which is being expended to improve the west, but we certainly must look after the interests of the east. Only last year, the government paid $1,000,000 as a part payment, not as full satisfaction, for the non-fulfilment of the terms of union in respect to crossing the straits in winter. It may not be very long before our people

will be asking for another $1,000,000 and if the financial and commercial disaster resulting from the failure to maintain the service last year are to be repeated in the future, $1,000,000 will not give satisfaction to the people of Prince Edward Island. This is a serious matter, and the government should take into consideration whether it would not be well to consult engineers and competent persons as to the construction of the tunnel between Cape Torinen-tine and Cape Traverse. But, in the meantime we must have a pier. We must have facilities. The tunnel cannot be built in a year, nor in four or five, years, and in the meantime we want facilities to carry on our winter service. We want a pier at Carlton point and we must have a new steamer. The steamer ' Stanley ' will soon be no good and the steamer ' Minto ' has certainly not sufficient capacity to carry the traffic between the mainland and the island. The people of Prince Edward Island have certainly been long suffering. They have been putting up year after year with a great deal of humbug and mismanagement-absolute mismanagement-on the part of the government. I can call it by no other name ; there is no excuse for it, as it has been repeated year after year and we have observed it very closely this year. We can get no satisfaction. It probably may be that the captains want to carry out the service satisfactorily. A representative in the local house made the charge that he knew that one of the captains was following instructions in not carrying out the service and that he could prove it. It is a general idea prevailing in Prince Edward Island that they are trying to give a black eye to the Summerside-Cape Tormentine route. The department at Ottawa may be trying to carry out the service, but they apparently do not understand the situation, they do not understand the changes in conditions that are liable to take place within a day in regard to ice and unless you have a local board of control or an agent of the department who has backbone enough to go ahead and perform the service without being hampered with a lot of red tape from Ottawa we will never have a satisfactory service. We ought to have some person on the spot who is in a position to dictate how these steamers shall be run. We must either have an agent of the Department of Marine and Fisheries down there who is capable of doing the work or a board of local control such as is advocated by a great many representative men on the island. I do not wish to take up any more time of the House upon this question except to say that while the people of Prince Edward Island realize, it is time the government realized, that this matter has to be dealt with in a business-like way, they have the experiences to show that improvements are needed without delay. They are in a position to know that the two boats we have are not sufficient to
perform the service and that we want landing facilities at Carleton point. I beg leave to move the motion which stands in my name.
Motion agreed to.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
Copies of all reports, correspondence, petitions and papers that are to be found in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, or in any other department, concerning the construction and placing of fish-ladders in the RiviSre du Nord, crossing the county of Two Mountains, from its confluence with the Ottawa river, at St. Andre, in the county of Argenteuil, to St. Jerome, in the county of Terrebonne, for the purpose of preventing the destruction of fish in the RiviSre du Nord.-Mr. Ethier.
Copies of all correspondence, Orders in Council, and other documents, in anywise relating to improvements or work done by the government of the United States : 1st. In the Detroit river and Lake Erie ; 2nd. In other international waters.-Mr. Cowan.
Copies of all Orders in Council, memorials, letters, telegrams, and other correspondence, and all other documents and communications in writing, between the first day of January, 1897, and the first day of May, 1903, relating to, or concerning, or in any way having reference to the granting of provincial autonomy to the North-west Territories, or the creation of the said Territories into a province, or provinces.- Mr. Borden (Halifax).

Mr. C. F. McISAAC (Antigonisli) moved.: :
That the petition of the Klondike Mines Railway Company, notwithstanding the expiration of the time for presenting petitions for private Bills, be now read and received and referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Mclsaac) would state what is the reason for asking to extend the time in this particular case. I have no doubt that there may be good reasons, but if we extend the time in this case we will be obliged to extend it in all cases, unless the present application is based on exceptional grounds.


Colin Francis McIsaac: The charter which it is sought to extend will not expire for a couple of months yet. The promoters of this railway have recently come out from the Klondike, and on reaching Ottawa they found that they would be required to furnish certain information to the Railway Department which they were not able to get before the expiration of the time. The full information has not yet been placed in my hands, but they will be able to give this information to the Standing Orders Committee and all they ask at the present time is to have this matter referred to the Standing Orders Committee, to which the reasons will be submitted.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I told my hon. friend that we would reserve judgment as to the merits of the case, but this motion is simply to allow the matter to go to the Standing Orders Committee.


Robert Laird Borden: If it is understood to be merely formal I shall raise no objection, but I should think that in a case of this kind some special reasons should be given to the House, because we are departing from our rule in acceding to the request of the hon. gentleman. However, as the Prime Minister is satisfied to let it go, I shall raise no further objection.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 39) to make further provision for the prevention of cruelty to animals, and to amend the Criminal Code, 1892.-Mr. Brock.
On section 1,
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think it is somewhat objectionable for my hon. friend to attempt to define the word animal in the way attempted here. Under it, if there were a canary bird, for instance, in a car, it would be incumbent on the railway company to make provision for its comfort and convenience.


Mr. BROCK.: My desire in bringing in this Bill has been to avoid anything which might reduce it to an absurdity. I am very anxious to have it passed, and would be willing to strike out the word bird, if the hon. gentleman desires to do so. I may say that one of the objects of the Bill is to prevent cows being crowded together when being taken to market, and to prevent small animals and birds being crowded together in coops. I do not suppose many canary birds are carried in freight cars.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Would my hon. friend allow me to offer this suggestion ? Certain amendments to the criminal code are now being considered in the department by a gentleman who has had large experience in the drafting of Bills of this kind ; and if my hon. friend will do me the favour of calling on Mr. Fraser in the department, he might be able to meet some of the objections which my hon. friend has in view, and make the Bill more workable than it is in its present shape.


William Rees Brock: Would it be possible, under these circumstances, to get it passed during the present session ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Oh, yes.
Progress reported.


Colin Francis McIsaac: 


FIRES CAUSED BY RAILWAYS.
Colonel W.   P.@: DEMERS (St. Johns and Iberville) moved second reading of Bill (No. 23) to indemnify those who suffer damages in consequence of fires caused by railways.


Robert Laird Borden: Explain.


Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the Bill which is now before the House to be read a second time, is the exact copy of a Bill Introduced last year in the British House of Commons, and the second reading of which was carried by 307 against 80. In spite of that vote, the Bill, presumably through the adverse influence of the leader of the House, did not become law.
According to the jurisprudence which now prevails >in England and in Canada, railway companies are not responsible for the fires they may start in running their trains, provided they show that their engines were at the time in perfect order. Such enactments, as I shall show, are contrary to common law. Railway companies, here and in England, enjoy privileges which are granted to them by their charters. Were they in the English-speaking provinces, as in the province of Quebec, left under the operation of the English common law, they would be held responsible for all losses inflicted by them. The whole question is dealt with at length in volume 7 of the reports of the Ontario Court of Appeal, at page 166 of which the following statement of principle is made :
The general rule of common law is correctly given in Fletcher vs. Rylands, that when a man brings or uses a thing of a dangerous nature on his own land he must keep it in at his own peril, and is liable for the consequences if it escapes and does injury to his neighbours.
The judges of the Privy Council, in the now famous case of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company vs. Roy, make a similar statement (see page 231 of the reports. Appeal cases, 1902). The judges of the Privy Council admit that, should the English common law obtain, the railway companies might be held responsible. They are exempt from responsibility; solely on the ground that the authority of parliament is supreme; and that parliament having authorized the railway companies to do the very things that are complained of, namely, to use 'engines for the carrying on of their business, they are not to be held responsible for losses inflicted. Herewith is what the judgment of the Privy Council sets forth, among other things :
Much was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent as to the peculiar jurisprudence of Quebec ; but in truth there is no such difference between the law of England and the law of Quebec in this respect as he seemed to suppose. The law in England, equally with the law of the province in question, affirms the

maxim ' sic utere tuo ut alienum non lsedas,' but the previous state of the law, whether in Quebec, or France, or England, cannot render inoperative the positive enactment of a statute, 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 the very thing 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. The thing to be done is a privilege as well as a right and duty, and it seems to their Lordships, it come within the express language of the code (article 356).
As may be seen, the admission is fairly made that it is a privilege pure and simple which parliament has granted to a railway company ; so that if we were to go by the common law, whether English or French, the company would be responsible for the fires it may start on neighbouring properties.
Then again, it seems to me the principle of this Bill cannot be controverted. A railway company should have the right to use its own property, but not the right to use that of its neighbour as well; and if sparks from its engines set that property on fire and cause losses, the company is actually using that neighbour's property, and not only using it, but misusing it. For these reasons, I trust the principle of this Bill will be agreed to by this House.
Across the line, the States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and North Carolina, among others, have enacted laws which provide that railway companies will be responsible for the fires started by their engines. At the last session of parliament, I introduced a Bill on the same lines as this one. The hon. the Prime Minister at the time spoke favourably of the object I had in view. As a measure introduced by a private member has not, as a rule, much ehance of passing, I think the best thing I can possibly do will be to hand over this Bill to the government requesting them to have it passed this year. It may be objected that this Bill is not worded as it should be, and that a matter of that kind does not fall within our purview. I am not of that opinion, for if railway companies enjoy privileges granted by this parliament, that same parliament has the right to enact that such companies will be responsible for the losses they cause, and that those who suffer such losses shall be entitled to claim damages. Besides, the matter of the wording of the Bill is a secondary one. It enacts that in case of a fire brought about by a railway company those who are made to suffer from such fires, will be entitled to recover compensation from the company. It does not matter much whether we say that the company shall be responsible for the losses, or that it shall be dealt with in conformity with the common law, notwithstanding any privileges granted by this parliament. The common law is the same in all the provinces ; and it is only by virtue of
a special enactment of this parliament that railway companies were declared exempt from any responsibility for losses brought about by the running of their trains.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) I approve of tihe principle which the Bill of my hon. friend (Mr. Demers) *has for its object to sanction. In consequence, I shall have much pleasure in voting for the Bill, which, to my mind, lays down an equitable rule in connection with the matter. However, I have some doubts as to whether such a law would wholly meet the purpose which my hon. friend has in view. We are dealing with a question which has been very much discussed by jurists, especially in the province of Quebec, and several have given it as their opinion that the passing of a direct Bill such as this one would be an infringement on the legislative powers of the provinces. After listening to the argument just made by my hon. friend, I admit there may be some doubt on this point. As I am in favour of some such measure being passed, I hope the Bill will be agreed to in consideration of the principle it involves.
In_ the course of this session, I prepared a Bill dealing with the same matter ; but I was content with laying down in a general way, the principle of the railway companies' responsibility, in the shape of an amendment to the Interpretation Act of the laws of this parliament. This could not have been looked upon as an infringement on provincial rights in the matter of legislation.
As regards the province of Quebec, the principle is already embodied in our laws, and has been recognized by our courts in the case of Roy. That point is quite clear to my mind, in spite of the contention of the hon. the Minister of Justice to the contrary. In an interesting work, the hon. gentleman has endeavoured to show the difference that exists between the legislative power in France and the legislative power in Canada, and has pointed out how much greater it is in our case. But, notwithstanding the force of his argument, I still believe that the question of losses arising from the running of railway trains is one that falls, within the purview of provincial legislatures.
In the province of Quebec, if I understand matters rightly, there is an action against any railway company for losses arising from fires set by sparks from its engines. But in the other provinces the law is different. In those provinces, I understand the principle of the English common law is strictly adhered to, and a company incorporated by parliament and enjoying its privileges with the necessary caution, is not to be held responsible for losses inflicted.
Should this Bill become law-and I hope It will-its effect will be to extend to the whole Dominion the very wise principle which obtains in the province of Quebec. If such an enactment be intra vires, it will

bring about a change in the common law of the other provinces, and place the railway companies incorporated here on the same footing as those ,incorporated In the province of Quebec. Farmers will be benefited by the passing of such a law ; but should it be ultra vires, I think the railway companies will take that ground for having it set aside. At all events, I am in favour of the Bill.


Mr. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Gasp6).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I cheerfully give my support to this Bill, the object of which my hon. friend, the member for St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers) has so clearly explained. For a long time past the need of such a law has been felt. It is repugnant to reason that railway companies should enjoy privileges tsuch as the new jurisprudence of His Majesty's Privy Council seems to allow them to enjoy. You will remember, no doubt, that this jurisprudence was very forcibly laid down in a' judgment rendered by the Privy Council in a case wherein the powerful Canadian Pacific Railway Company and a poor farmer of the province of Quebec, named Adrien Roy, were the interested parties. On a previous occasion, I recounted; the various stages through w'hich this now celebrated case wagi -made to pass. About 1901, a, Canadian Pacific Railway train, having crossed the property of this settler, a fire started by cinders from the engine destroyed his wood lot and farm buildings. He entered an action for damages against the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the case came up before Mr. Justice Langelier, of whom our bench and bar are justly proud. The judgment of the court awarded the plaintiff damages to the extent of $400 and costs. The case was taken to appeal and the judgment of the Superior Court unanimously maintained. The judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal is a very elaborate document and gives a complete review of the jurisprudence heretofore followed in the province of Quebec. It is a judgment indeed, and it was to be hoped that it would be upheld by the Lords of the Privy Council. However, the Canadian Pacific Railway wished to exhaust all resorts and by means of the appeal of favour, took their case before the Privy Council. Well, notwithstanding the rational construction put by our courts on article 1053 of our civil code, notwithstanding a long list of judgments rendered by the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal, the Privy Council reversed the judgment referred to and established a new jurisprudence, new, at any rate, as regards the province of Quebec. That decision caused a great commotion in our judiciary circles, and was the object of much adverse criticism. I, myself, called the attention of the Minister of Justice last year to this new interpretation of our law. It has always ap-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: peared to me that, even under the Railway Act, companies causing losses to properties, situated along their lines, could not escape the responsibility laid down by articles 1053 and 1054 of the civil code. That is also the opinion of the judges of the Superior Court and of the Court of Appeal. In spite of all that, whether we like it or not, we are bound henceforth to go by the new jurisprudence laid down by the Privy Council. The way out of the difficulty is clearly shown in the provisions of the Bill now before us. If we are unwilling to grant special privileges in behalf of railway companies, if we wish them to be on an equal footing with individuals, it goes without saying that the Bill of my hon. friend the member for St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers) should be voted by parliament. This is an opportune time for doing so. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals is moving just now for the consolidation of our railway laws. Why should not the principle so clearly laid down in this Bill be embodied in the general law ? Such an amendment is imperative if we wish to uphold the principle enacted by our code, and render the railway companies responsible for the losses inflicted by the running of their trains. I shall give my support to the Bill with the hope that the Minister of Railways will find in it the way out of the difficulty created by that unfortunate judgment of the Privy Council.


Mr. W. A. GALLIHER (Yale and Cariboo).: I think the Bill is far-reaching in its effects, and it is desirable that it should have its second reading and be referred to the Railway Committee, where the different interests concerned may be heard. I have no objection to its second reading, but am of opinion that it should be referred to the Railway Committee, where we will have every opportunity of hearing every objection that may be raised by those interested.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I agree with my hon. friend who has just spoken that this Bill should be referred to the Railway Committee. It is intended to give compensation for damages in the case of fires caused by sparks from railway locomotives. A Bill of a similar character was introduced in the English House of Commons but not proceeded with when first introduced. It was again reintroduced in the month of February, 1901, and its second reading was carried by a majority of 370 to 80. This shows what the feeling is in England with respect to legislation of this kind. I myself think that the discussion which has taken place in this House regarding the judgment rendered by the Privy Council in the case of Roy and the Canadian Pacific Railway went further than was quite justified by the circumstances. There was no encroachment by the judgment of the Privy Council on the civil laws of the province of Quebec or any

of the privileges enjoyed by that province. The principle laid down was this: that when a legislature-the parliament of Canada, for instance-creates a corporation, which it has power to create, so long as that corporation exercises the powers granted it in the manner provided by parliament, there can be no fault on its part for which it may be held responsible in damages. The principle on which the law in the province of Quebec governing damages Is based, is that every man is responsible for the damage caused by his fault or that of his agent. But how can there be fault on the part of a corporation, if it is merely carrying out the powers conferred upon it by the legislature which brought it Into existence and in the manner provided by that legislature ? That is .the only question the Privy Council determined, it did not attempt to interfere with the laws of the province of Quebec. The principle laid down was this-and the judgment is based on the doctrine well established everywhere-that there can be no liability for acts done under statutory authority when there is no negligence.
Take the case of Roy and the Canadian Pacific Railway. It would appear-and I am not satisfied that the fact is absolutely true -that sparks from one of the locomotives of the Canadian Pacific Railway, set fire to a building owned by the plaintiff. The point decided by the court was that, so long as the locomotive was equipped with all modern appliances, as required by statute, the company was not in fault and there could be no recourse in damages against it. The statute which authorizes the company to operate its railway determines also the conditions under which the railway may be operated and the locomotives constructed, and one of these is that the locomotives must be equipped with all modern appliances. So long as you comply with the statutes, where can fault come in ? That is all the Privy Council held. It is a necessary incident to the exercise of our parliamentary authority and the full enjoyment of our parliamentary institutions, that if this parliament has power to legislate with -respect to corporations, it must have the power to vest these corporations with everything required to give effect to that legislation. It would be an impossible condition if a large railway corporation, incorporated by this parliament, would be subject to the local laws of every province regarding the powers conferred upon it. For instance, if the Canadian Pacific Railway should be made subject, as it passes from one province to another, to every local law in respect of the appliances it must use, the operation of that railway would be rendered impossible. It is absolutely necessary that when we give to a corporation powers within our authority, that corporation should have the right to exercise those powers uninterfered with 88
by the laws of any particular province. That certainly is necessary if our institutions are to have full operation and our legislation to have proper effect. This Bill, at first sight, seems to me entirely within our authority, if we think proper to pass it. If we, by our legislation here, can interfere with the civil or common law of any particular province-the civil law of Quebec or the common law of any other province- we can of our own notion restrict our legislation so as to say that it shall not operate in such a manner so as to amend the civil law or the common law of any other province. Whether that would be right and proper is another question. But, while I have not considered the matter very carefully, it seems to me that we have the power to pass such legislation. The matter should go before the Railway Committee in order that all parties may be heard. This is very far-reaching legislation. It is going to undo the legislation we have had heretofore with respect to damages caused by fires arising from the sparks of locomotives.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it will be proper to send the Bill to the Railway Committee, because, so far as the majority of the provinces are concerned, it will alter the law to a very considerable extent, governing the liability of railway corporations. In my own, and I think in all the maritime provinces, the law is that railway companies, authorized by Act of parliament to operate railways, are not liable for damages of this kind, unless occasioned by their negligence. It is entirely a question of negligence. I have not any doubt, speaking without much consideration, as to our power to pass the Bill, because, while this parliament can create a corporation and give it power to operate a railway, it can attach to that power any conditions it sees fit. If a railway company acts in accordance with its charter, it is not liable, except in case of negligence. But it is perfectly competent, as pointed out by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, for us'to give that power subject to the condition, if necessary, that certain civil liabilities shall attach to the operation of the railway, even although no negligence can be proved. I would therefore concur, so far as I am concerned, In the proposal of the hon. Minister of Justice to send this Bill to the Railway Committee.
Motion agreed to; Bill read the second time and referred to the Select Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.


GENERAL INSPECTION ACT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MCCARTHY moved that Bill (No. 48) to amend the General Inspection Act be read the second time and referred to a special committee, composed of Messieurs McCarthy, Thompson (Haldimand), Parmelee, Henderson, Wilson, Sherritt and Cowan.
Robert Laird Borden: I have no objection, provided this be not regarded as an affirmation of the principle of the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order being called for :
Resuming adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Monk for the second reading of Bill (No. 53) respecting insolvency.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: Stand.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this matter has been pretty fully explained, and I would like to take the sense of the House upon the Bill.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) prefers it. But I had the misfortune to be absent when he explained the Bill to the House, and I am sorry to say that I have not had an opportunity to read what he said. I meant to do so before the Bill should come before us again. Probably I shall have an opportunity to read his explanation within the next few days, and shall be better able to discuss the Bill if it is postponed now and brought up again.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Perhaps the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) has overlooked the fact that this is the last opportunity we shall have during the present session.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Not the last.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Only one more day.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is right. But my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) will admit that, with the House so thin as at present, he could not have the sense of the House upon the question this afternoon.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I should be satisfied to have the sense of the House as it is now composed.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If it is impossible, of course, I submit. But I very much fear there will be no other opportunity to take the sense of the House upon this Bill, and I would like to take it now.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend will have the opportunity of taking the sense of the House next Monday. And I certainly would prefer it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not wish to insist unduly ; but I shall insist upon a division if I am in order.


Mr. SPEAKER.: There can be no question that the hon. member (Mr. Monk) has the right to move the second reading of the Bill now.
Mr. McCarthy.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the government will say that there will be an opportunity.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Certainly. I have said so to my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) and I say so again.


Robert Laird Borden: Not later than next Monday ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Not later than next Monday.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Stand.
Order allowed to stand.


FRUIT MARKS ACT.
Mr.  E. D.@: SMITH (South Wentworth) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 86) to amend the Fruit Marks Act, 1901. He said :	My proposal is to add to the Fruit
Marks Act, 1901, the following, immediately after section 9 :
9a. Whenever any person having at least a carload of fruit packed in close packages ready for shipment desires it, the Department of Agriculture shall send a qualified inspector as expeditiously as possible to examine the same and brand upon the packages the grade of the fruit therein.
The Fruit Marks Act was passed two years ago and amended a year ago. So in its amended form, it was in operation last season. There was a very heavy crop of apples of poor quality, so that there was an opportunity to test the Act to the fullest extent. It worked remarkably well in many ways. There was one difficulty, however. The inspector was empowered to examine apples anywhere, and, if he found them wrongly branded to mark them. But the Act did not provide that a man, having apples to sell, could have them branded according to their quality by some authority -in this case the authority of the government. To have this done would be an enormous advantage to the growers and shippers of apples. The man who already has a good brand established or is able to establish a brand does not need such a law as this. Perhaps it would be no advantage to him. But it would be an enormous advantage to the ordinary grower who has a carload of apples-or it might be made to apply to less than a car. When this Act was first proposed in the Fruit Growers' Association, this feature of it was discussed. But it was agreed by all that it would be desirable not to have the powers of the inspector extended so far ; the promoters of the Bill had the idea that it would be advisable not to load it up with too many clauses at once, but that it should be tried for a year or two as finally proposed to the House, that all might see how it would work. It has been in operation for these two years, and all those engaged in the business find this fault with it. Any one who is at all conversant with the trade in

apples will readily understand what an advantage it would be to a man to have his apples branded with a mark to show that they were of the grade he thought they were. Every one almost, has a different idea of what a No. 1 grade of apples is. But, if a farmer had a carload of apples ready for sale, packed, as he thought, in accordance with the requirements of the Act, and could have them branded No. 1 by a government inspector, he would not have to establish a brand, but it would be already established, and he would have .a marketable commodity ready to place on the market either in this country or in England. The market would be prepared for him, and he would have no difficulty in selling. My idea is that the cost of inspection would be defrayed by fees. X hope the House will consider the Bill favourably, and allow it to take its second reading now. It can be further discussed when It comes up in committee.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). I regret that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) who takes a very deep interest in this question, and who introduced the Bill which my hon. friend (Mr. Smith, Wentworth) proposes to amend, is not present. I would prefer, if possible, that the motion should be delayed. The hon. Minister of Agriculture is expected to be here in about ten days. Still, if the hon. gentleman feels that he is ready to go on and wishes to proceed, we have no right to ask him for further delay. But if it is as convenient to him, I would suggest that it stand until the arrival of the minister, and I move that the debate be adjourned. Meanwhile, I will say that from the advice I have received I think this Bill goes very much beyond what was the intention of the minister in proposing the Act in question. It was not designed that there should be an inspection of fruit by government inspectors except in a secondary degree. The design is that the inspection should be made by the fruit grower or the fruit packer who is in a position to have personal knowledge of the contents of the package, and that government inspection only comes in at a later stage where the inspector has a right to mark a barrel or package of fruit which is found to have been falsely marked. I am inclined to think that the passage of this Bill would involve the employment of a much larger number of inspectors than we have, and that the thing could hardly be worked out successfully. Government inspection in this case cannot be so intelligent as the inspection by the fruit grower or producer himself. My hon. friend proposes that where a carload of fruit is ready the government inspector shall examine it. But how can a government inspector examine that whole carload unless he opens up each package ? That, I think, will be found manifestly inconvenient. Surely it
88J
would be better in the interest of the fruit glower that he should have the responsibility of marking his fruit himeslf; the responsibility is upon him, if he is a man of good reputation, and establishes a brand for his fruit, and he desires to preserve that reputation. If on the other hand, his brand turns out to be unreliable, he must suffer the consequence. But I am inclined to think from information I have received-it is not a subject upon which I am as well informed as the hon. member for South Wentworth (Mr. Smith)-but from the advice and information I have received from officers of the department, I am inclined to believe that the object he has in view cannot be carried out, that the scheme is unmanageable, that the inspection and marking of fruit can best be done by the grower or packer who has a personal knowledge of the contents of the package. Any attempt to have a government inspection without an examination of each package would, I am afraid, be found to be unworkable. There are some things from which you can take a sample, and you can brand a number of packages, possibly by testing a sample, because you have a guarantee that comes from their common origin. I am afraid that is not possible with fruit, where the fruit is gathered from different growers and packers. At all events, I would suggest that my hon. friend, who is an experienced fruit grower, and attaches importance to his Bill, would let it stand over until a later stage, because in a few days the minister will be here, and from such information as I have at present, I should be obliged to ask my hon. friend not to press his Bill.


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: I will consent not to press the Bill in the absence of the minister, but I would like to have an opportunity of bringing it up again. It might pass Its second reading now, and be discussed in committee later on.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will promise my hon. friend that there will be an opportunity to discuss it at a later stage, so he will lose nothing by delay. I would make the same observation to my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) who has a Bill on the same subject coming on a few minutes later.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
CONCILIATION AWtl
"toaerieqz-j
Mr.  A. W.@: PUTTEE (Winnipeg) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 95) to amend the Conciliation Act, 1900. He said : This Bill is exactly similar to the one that was presented by myself last year, and I presume that during that time it has received some consideration at the hands of the Minister of Labour. In dealing with this matter I might express the wish that the Minister of Labour would give us his own opin-

ion, and some account of the actual operations of the Conciliation Act during the three years it has been in force. There are at the present time, as was shown by the debate in this House last week, a large number of industrial disturbances in the Dominion, In nearly every province attention is being drawn to disagreements between capital and labour; therefore I think, Mr. Speaker, the House will be inclined to give some attention to a proposition which aims to improve the Conciliation Act as much as possible. I notice that the Minister of I,a hour has gone definitely upon record as altogether in favour of the principle of compulsory investigation rather than compulsory arbitration. I would like to be able to think that these attempts and these experiments that he is making would be effective. But I cannot persuade myself that they will be really effective, not that they will not affect any disputes, but that they will not practically affect any considerable number of the disputes that we are having and that we are likely to have in the future. I submit that we have no warrant whatever to expect in the near future any cessation in the number of labour disputes in this country.
We have seen during the last five years, and more than ever during the last three years, an increase in the number of these disputes. The reason probably has been the general wave of prosperity that has advanced over the country. Everything has been advancing in price, in cost, and labour seems always to be the last to advance and to obtain a share of the prosperity. In this respect prosperity has been practically a curse to the wage earner. The wage earner, whose wages have a tendency to remain at the same figure, cannot get them advanced in many instances without going in to industrial trouble, and he has often had to sacrifice weeks and weeks of his salary in an attempt to get his wage scaled up to meet the requirements called for by the increased cost of everything on which he has to spend his wages.	Speaking especially for the
city I know best, prosperity has been a most serious drawback to the men who work for wages. Of course, I claim that we have no right, at all events, to condemn the principle of compulsory arbitration so far as we know what its record has been. It has only been in operation seven or eight years, I think, under a British form of government, t^t, is in New Zealand. They have experience there as well as we have in rising, markets, and there is no doubt that the Act has been successful in abolishing strikes. There is some difference of opinion at whose cost success has been gained. It is very generally supposed that the worker has gained the largest number of awards made. On the other hand, I think we can find in New Zealand itself that the workers, although they agree to the prin- j


Mr. PUTTEE.: ciple are no more enthusiastically in favour of it than are the employers themselves. The employers claim this one thing for the Act, at all events, that it has abolished suicidal and industrial disputes in the matter of strikes and lockouts.
It is taken into the court; it is separate altogether from the local court, but, at the same time into the court where the dispute is considered and adjusted while the men are at work, while the wages are being paid, while industry is continued, and whatever the result is you have the award loyally accepted by both sides. At the present time I believe there is a probability of one award finally being put to test. For myself, I shall watch with some concern the outcome of this matter, although I am not prepared at all to agree in advance that any objection to an award, either on the part of an employer, if the award may be against him, or on the part of the employee, if the award be against him, or if one or two objections are to be taken, it shall be considered as a condemnation of the principle of compulsory arbitration. If it were possible, and I believe most things are possible in this country, if we attempt them in the right way, even by means of legislation in this House, I favouy this principle because I believe it makes for industrial peace. In view of the enormous distance that there is in this countrv between the present condition and industrial peace, I believe it is something to be looked for and to be worked for. The Bill that I have introduced simply attempts, or seeks to amend the Conciliation Act of 1900. I am ready to believe that there is some merit in the suggestions that have been put into these clauses because I find the tdea exactly carried out in the Bill that this House was discussing the other evening, called an Act to aid in the settlement of railway labour disputes. That Bill seeks practically to apply the same principle that is involved in Bill No. 95, but it applies it only to railways. There seems to be no doubt that the promoter of the Bill expects good to result from it, but the question that is raised and the question that must be raised in everybody's mind is: Why not extend the principle of that Bill to other industries that we can affect, to the mines especially and to large manufacturing industries ? I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if the principle is good in connection with railways, it would be equally good in connection with the general industries of the country, and I do submit that the probabilities are that it would be a great deal more useful and that it would certainly be a good deal more availed of. At the present time, as was shown in the debate the other evening, the larger organizations in connection with railways have got beyond that period in the life of labour organizations when strikes are necessary. They no longer strike. The principal railway organ!-

zations of this country and of this continent no longer have to resort to strikes. Their differences are settled by conciliation, by conferences, by appeals, first to one official then to another official, right up to tile vicepresidents and presidents of the road, and if there is no agreement then come to with the representatives of the railway system, the chief officers of other systems are called in both by the railway corporations and by the labour organizations. This practice for the last eight or ten years, has resulted in practically abolishing strikes on Canadian railways in so far as the old established brotherhoods are concerned. Strikes by the newer organizations which are brought about by the desire of the railway companies not to have to deal with any other bodies of employees as bodies, are continually arising, they will arise in future and this railway Conciliation Bill will be brought into operation to that extent, but I believe not in the same degree as it would be if applied to the general business of the country. Although the Conciliation Act is something to the credit of the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock), I believe he could tell us that it does not, as a matter of fact, affect many of the disputes that arise, and that under this Act they are settled neither satisfactorily nor unsatisfactorily, because they simply wear themselves out in the course of time, and the reason for this is not because the parties to the dispute are necessarily opposed to conciliation. In any serious dispute, I take it, and it is a fact, that either party would welcome conciliation if it could be brought about by a third party without either of the disputants appearing to solicit it, because, in the matter of a labour dispute, as in a larger dispute, the party who is calling for an armistice, the party who is calling for cessation of hostilities or for intervention, is practically admitting that he is beaten, and employers will not ask for conciliation because they are afraid it will give heart to the men on strike, and labour organizations which have a strong fund to support their members, are reluctant to ask for conciliation because they are afraid it will be taken as an admission that they have lost the day, and that finally in the award it will be used against them. It was this important consideration, I believe, in connection with the big strike in New Zealand, in 1890 or 1892, that first led the statesmen of that country to formulate their Compulsory Arbitration Act, which Act practically operates altogether independently of the expressed wish of either of the parties. I believe that if our Conciliation Act could be so amended that it could be put into operation, at all events, as far as conciliation is concerned, and if the minister had the power and also the duty in connection with the labour dispute of making an investigation and attempting conciliation, the probability is that it would be found easy to bring the
parties together and would result in the ending of many industrial disputes.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I understand my hon. friend (Mr. Puttee) has not concluded his remarks ?


Arthur W. Puttee: No, I have not quite concluded.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Mr. Speaker, out of respect to the memory of the late Mr. Justice Mills, for a long time a prominent and very much respected member of this House, and so as to permit hon. members to attend his funeral, which will take place this evening, I now have the honour to move that the House do adjourn.


Robert Laird Borden: I esteem it my duty, Sir, under the circumstances and out of the respect that we owe to the gentleman who was so long a prominent figure in the public life of Canada, and who at the time of his death occupied a very high position on a judicial bench, of this country, to second the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 6 o'clock.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 12, 1903.