1903-03-26

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 37) respecting the Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Brown.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 38) respecting the Great Northwestern Railway Company.-Mr. McCreary.
Bill (No. 39) to make further provision for the prevention of cruelty to animals and to amend the Criminal Code, 1892.-Mr. Brock.


Mr. CASGRAIN asked :: Have any representations been received by the government of Canada from the imperial government as to the advisability of locating the next Canadian Transcontinental Railway in such a manner that it may be remote from the frontier, and useful for military purposes ; and so placed that railway and telegraph communication between eastern and western Canada may not be liable to be cut off ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE. (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden).: No such representations have been made by the imperial government to the government of Canada.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.-SPUR LINE FROM RIVIERE OUELLE.
Mr. CASGRAIN asked :: 1.	How much of the sum of $43,000, included in the Appropriation Act, 2 Edward VII, Chapter 1, ' for the building of a spur line of railway from the Intercolonial Railway station at Rivifere Ouelle to the wharf on the St. Lawrence,' has been expended ?
2.	Is the spur line in question finished 1
3.	Is it the intention of the government to establish in connection with the said spur line a ferry between the wharf at RiviSre Ouelle and the north shore of the St. Lawrence 1
4.	If so, have any arrangements been made with any person or company to establish such a ferry, and with whom ?
5.	Has the establishment of such ferry been recommended in writing by any member of the House of Commons; and if so, by whom ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) ;
1.	The amount expended up to the 31st January, 1903, on RiviSre Ouelle branch is 819,578.08.
2.	No.
3.	Yes. We have it in contemplation to arrange for a connection of that kind.
4.	No arrangements have yet been concluded.
5.	It has not been customary for the government to make public the names of parties with whom it has advised on questions of this kind.


DOUKHOBORS HOMESTEAD ENTRIES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILSON asked ;
How many Doukhobors have entered for homesteads in the North-west Territories in the years 1900, 1901 and 1902 ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir William Mulock) :: Calendar Year.	No. of Entries.
1900		
1901			 62
1902			 207
Total			 269
HOUSES AND FUEL	FOR IMMIGRANTS.
Mr. WILSON asked	
In view of the large	immigration into Man!
toba and the North-west Territories, what ac	
tion has the government taken to see that they will be provided with houses and fuel for the next winter ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: The department has no reason to believe that the immigrants coming into Canada will not be able to provide themselves with houses and fuel.


DOUKHOBOR PILGRIMAGE.
Mr. WILSON asked :: 1.	How many horses, sheep and cattle did the Doukhobors turn at large in the fall of 1902, in the Yorkton District 1
2.	How many of these animals did the government officials take in charge ; what was done with these cattle, and what was the cost to the government ?
3.	If these cattle were sold, how much did they bring; who sold them and what was done with the money 7
4.	When the Doukhobors of the Yorkton District went on their pilgrimage, in the fall of 1902, what did it cost to take them back to their homes; who paid it, and to whom was it paid ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock) :: 1.	The exact number is not given, but there were about 120 horses, 95 sheep and 285 cattle.
2.	The government officials took charge of
120 horses, 95 sheep and 285 cattle. They were sold at auction at no cost to the government.
3.	The stock realized $16,024.25. They were sold by C. J. Macfarlane, an auctioneer authorized by the department, and the money was placed in ' trust ' to be expended in the relief of the Doukhobors.
4.	The expenses in connection with the Doukhobors' pilgrimage amounted to $7,292. and this was paid from the trust fund. This money was expended by the officials of the department and a receipt was given by three leaders of the Doukhobors duly authorized to do so at a special meeting of the Doukhobors held for the purpose. The details of this expenditure have not been sent to Ottawa.


GRAIN SHIPMENTS FROM PORT ARTHUR AND FORT WILLIAM.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. HOLMES asked ;
What was the total shipment of grain, during the season of navigation, from Port Arthur
[Stage Direction]
and Fort William, during the years 1901 and 1902 ; and to what points were the shipments made ?
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. William Paterson).: The total grain shipments from the undermentioned ports during the season of navigation were as follows :
1901.	1902.
Bushels. Bushels.
Port Arthur	 709,032	6,801,209
Fort William	 13,856,168 29,400,652
Particulars of grain shipments from Port Arthur during the following seasons of navigation :
	1901.	1902.
	Bushels.	Bushels.
To Parry Sound			34,000
Meatord			329,1.53
Collingwood		45,602	
Point Edward		55,919	
Sarnia			56,540
Kingston	272,255	780,389Goderich	134,6S2	882,578Montreal	45,814	229,133Midland	26,061	1,821,4S4Owen Sound	50,111	362,857Depot Harbour	35,000	458,989Total to Canadian ports..	665,444	4,955,023To Buffalo	8,012	1,690,916Port Huron	35,576	155,270709,032	6,801,209
Particulars of grain shipments from Fort William during the following seasons of navigation :
	1901.	1902.
	Bushels.	Bushels.
To Midland		. 2,160,090	6,710,898
Parry Sound		. 42,000	
Depot Harbour	. 636,000	3,354,382Owen Sound	. 1,809,136	1,080,934Meaford	. 100,000	322,688Goderich	. 1,179,182	1,866,788Sarnia	678,000	636,463Kingston	. 2,459,570	3,993.522Montreal	. 11S.OOO	100,000Collingwood	31,000Total to Canadian ports.,	, 9,181,978	18,096 575To Buffalo	. 4,674,190	10,343,319Port Huron	960,75813,856,168	29.400,652


SUB-COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AT TRA-CAD1E, N. B.
Mr. WILMOT asked :: 1.	Has M. E. Bourgeois been dismissed from the position of sub-collector of customs at Tracadie, N.B. ? If so, when was he dismissed, and for what reason ?
2.	Was any complaint entered against him ? If so, what was the nature of the complaint, and was he given an opportunity of defending himself ?
3.	Who made the complaint, and upon whose recommendation was he dismissed ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: M. E. Bourgeois, sub-collector of customs at Tracadie, N.B., was


Mr. HOLMES.: retired from the customs service, from 1st February, 1903, on account of age, it being considered necessary to have a younger and more energetic officer for customs service at that place.


INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.
Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR (South Leeds).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to remind the Finance Minister that yesterday he promised to bring down immediately, a return which I moved for.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). I did not promise it ' immediately,' but I promised it promptly. The return may be brought down to-day, or at all events to-morrow.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Is it a complicated and lengthy return ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: There should be some uniformity regarding this matter of answering questions. The Minister of Customs to-day gave a very long answer to a question propounded by one of his supporters, and I have not the slightest doubt that if the question were asked by a member on this side we would be compelled to move for a return. The same principle should apply to both sides of the House regarding questions of that character. I do not see why the slightest discrimination should be made. Discrimination of that kind will not advance the business of the House. I want to be fair about it, but I have observed more than once that it makes a considerable difference whether the question comes from that side of the House or from this side.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There should be no discrimination of that kind, and I do not think there is. There has been no unreasonable delay about this return and it will be brought down as soon as possible.


Robert Laird Borden: I gather that the question asked by my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) will probably involve a shorter answer than the question put by the member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes), which was answered by the Minister of Customs, and yet in one ease we were compelled to move for a return and in the other case the answer was brought down at once.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am sure that there is as great a disposition to answer a question from that side of the House as from this.


Robert Laird Borden: We would like to see it.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: We have to get this in-| formation from the different ports and we I try to get it as rapidly as possible, and when

we do get it we give it as soon as it comes into our possession. We do not know any other way of dealing with the business of the House.


THE IfRENCH TRANSLATION OF THE PAPERS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr.   T.@: 0. CASGRAIN (Montmorency.)- (Translation.)-Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the way in which the translation of our papers is done.
The PRIME MINISTER (The Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.) (Translation.) Is the hon. gentleman referring to the ' Hansard ' ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: (Translation.) No, I am alluding to the papers of the House. Last year I had the opportunity of bringing to the attention of the House that very same matter, and now I wish to give an instance which shows how faulty, to say the least, that translation is.
I have placed on the Order Paper of the day a question in connection with a ferry boat which is to accommodate RiviSre Ouelle and the north shore of the St. Lawrence. Now, they have translated the word ' ferry ' by the French word ' bac.' I would not have thought it was worth while to correct that error, were it not that I do not wish to be made a laughing stocl* to the community by leaving the public under the impression that I used the word ' bac ' to describe the character of the accommodation which is to be given to the public by a ferry boat plying between Riviere Ouelle and La Malbaie. If you take the trouble of referring to Bescherelle's dictionary, you will find that ' bac ' is described as follows : A large, flat boat, chiefly used for ferrying over a river, cattle, carts, &c., by means of a cable fastened on both shores.


The PRIME MINISTER.: (Translation.) Where are the words to be found which you are complaining of ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: (Translation.) At the top of page three of to-day's Order Paper. It would have been absolutely preposterous for me to have used such a word in describing the service which is to be provided by means of a ferry boat plying between Riviere Ouelle and the north shore of the St. Lawrence.
So, I think, the officials whose duty it is to translate the papers referred to, should give a closer attention to their work.


RAILWAY SUBSIDIES ACT-PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk) moved second reading of Bill (No. 2) to amend chapter 8 of the statutes of 1900, authorizing the granting, of railway subsidies. He said : Chapter 8 of the statutes of 1900 makes a provision which I desire 18
slightly to amend. This provision is contained in section 3, subsection ' C ' and is as follows :
Upon progress estimates and the certificate of the chief engineer of Railways and Canals, that in his opinion, having regard to the whole work undertaken and the aid granted, the progress made justifies the payment of a sum not less than $60,000.
In practice, this provision is found to work to the detriment of roads whose subsidies are within the sum of $60,000. A road with a larger subsidy, may upon a progress estimate apply for an allowance from the subsidy and upon the report of the chief engineer, that allowance can be made. But a road with a subsidy of $60,000 or less, although it may be almost completed, although the progress estimates would show that a very small sum of money would be required to complete the road ; yet a road of that character is absolutely debarred from an application for an allowance upon its subsidy under the progress estimate. It must be apparent to the House that this inadvertently works an injustice by putting a road with a small subsidy at a disadvantage as compared with roads having a larger subsidy. In view of this I have introduced this Bill which contains the simple provision that the figure ' $30,000 ' shall be substituted for '$60,000.'
Mr. MONK.: Is this amendment going to apply to railways which are only entitled to a subsidy of less than $60,000, or has it a general application ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I might be permitted to explain that in 1898 we introduced a departure from the ordinary rui"-which governed the payment of subsidies, by providing that in respect to the Crow's Nest Pass Railway, and I think the Victoria bridge, which were likely to earn very large sums, and which would not be able to complete their line in ten-mile sections ; that we should be authorized to make payment on progress estimates providing the amount earned on the said progress estimates would not be less than $60,000. Not that the whole subsidy then earned would not exceed $60,000, but when the amount to be earned with respect to such progress estimates would not exceed $60,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Was that in 1900 ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It was before 1900. I think It was as early as 1898, because it was then that the Crow's Nest Pass contract was entered into. At the same time the Grand Trunk Railway was building the Victoria bridge.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: The hon. Minister of Railways may remember that yesterday there was a debate on this very subject, in which I stated that the Railway Act was amended so that progress estimates might



be allowed as the road was under construction. The Minister of Railways then stated that that had application only to the Crow's Nest Pass Railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, my hon. friend is in error as to that.
, Hon. Mr. HAGGART. If you look at the debate of yesterday, you will find that I ana strictly correct.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I understood the hon. gentleman to have reference to the original adoption of this particular change in the law, which was in respect of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway.


John Graham Haggart: My statement was that the Railway Act was. read so as to allow the government to make advances on progress estimates instead of on the completion of 10-milei sections. The hon. minister stated that that applied only to the Crow's Nest Pass Railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not intend to convey that.


John Graham Haggart: The Act provides that the subsidies hereby granted, and any subsidies heretofore granted under any Act of parliament of Canada, still in force, but not fully paid, may be paid upon progress estimates on the certificate of the chief engineer of Railways and Canals that in his opinion, having regard to the whole work undertaken and the aid granted, the progress made justifies the payment of a sum not less than $60,000. It has no such application as the Minister of Railways now states. He states that this only takes effect when there has not been ten miles of road completed, and where there has been $60,000 spent on a section that does not constitute a complete section of ten miles. There is no such application as that at all.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not say there was.


John Graham Haggart: Well, it is unfortunate that when I repeat a statement that has been made by the minister just a few seconds before, I have so misunderstood it that I am subject to a correction by the hon. minister. I leave it to the House if I am not correct in saying that the hon. minister left the impression on the House which I have stated. He may not have intended to say so, but the fact is there that payments can be made on progress estimates, not taking into consideration whether ten miles are completed or not; and the present Bill is for the purpose of amending the Act in order to extend the application, as I think properly, to sums not less than $30,000.


Mr. CHARLTON.: The Act contemplates dealing with a class of railways-there are not many of them-that have a subsidy coming within or very near the limit set in Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
this Bill. For instance, there may be a road fifteen miles In length entitled to a subsidy of $3,200 a mile.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I wish to call the hon. member's attention to the fact that hei has already spoken, and he cannot continue except with the unanimous consent of the House.


John Charlton: The subsidy on a road of that length would be something like $48,000. The road might be almost completed. There! might be work enough to have completed fourteen of the fifteen miles, and yet the ten-mile section not fully completed. Although there might be only $2,000 or $3,000 of expenditure required to complete the work, the subsidy would be hung up by this provision, which was not intended to discriminate in that manner against the smaller! roads; and the Bill simply asks for the substitution of * thirty ' for ' sixty,' so that these smaller roads may be treated with the same degree of fairness that would be accorded to the larger and more expensive roads., It is for the purpose of rectifying an unintentional hardship, and not for the purpose of prejudicing in any way any public interest, that this Bill is introduced.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It does not seem to me very wise for us to change the statute of 1900. By the terms of section 3 of that statute we provide that subsidies shall be paid in two cases : first, in the case of the completion of a ten-mile section. That seems fair enough. Secondly, upon progress estimates on the certificate of the chief engineer of Railways and Canals, that in his opinion, having regard to the whole work undertaken and the aid granted, the progress made justifies the payment} of a sum not less than $60,000; or with respect to part one way and part the other; that is to say, when part of the ten-mile section is built and part of the $60,000 is earned. It seems to me on general principles that this gives the government and the railway company quite latitude enough. We should not, I think, reduce the limit of $60,000 to any smaller figure, particularly in view of the facts which were commented on yesterday in this House, showing that these payments of subsidies are very often abused. Unless there is some very special reason, graver than that given by the hon. gentleman, I think we should adhere to the enactment of 1900.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know whether I shall be taken as having spoken, because of the explanation I made ; but if I have, I would ask the indulgence of the House for the purpose of making one remark on the Bill. While I have no objection to offer to the hon. gentleman's motion passing, and would not set up any direct nor indirect opposition to it, at the same time I think that we might very well consider whether or not it is desirable to continue in the future the

system of paying on progress estimates. 1 see no such objection to it as has been referred to by the bon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), because I think the public interest can be safeguarded as well if you are paying from progress estimates as if you were paying according to the original plan. But there are drawbacks which are largely departmental, and which it would not be desirable for us to continue. It will be in the memory of hon. members that some years ago-I think in 1898-we adopted the plan of allowing payments to be made on progress estimates and not limiting the payments of subsidies to the completion of ten-mile sections. Very strong representations were made that it would be impossible in a work such as was contemplated-the construction of the Crow's Nest Pass Railway-that ten-mile sections could be completed. There was a great deal of heavy work on it. The company desired to prosecute the work with all dispatch, to go on with its grading over the entire length simultaneously, if possible, and it would not be possible to grade and do ballasting and station building on every ten miles with the expedition they had in mind. Therefore parliament consented that in respect of these two undertakings, the Crow's Nest Pass Railway and the Victoria bridge, upon the companies showing that they had expended a sufficient amount in the work to earn a payment on subsidy account of not less than $60,000, the government might make payment to them of such an amount. Since then a clause lias been inserted in this general Act, and we have paid in a few instances on progress estimates when the parties have been able to bring themselves within the limitations of the present law. I think that the law is attended with some disadvantages. We are often called upon to send engineers for the purpose of making an inspection of a road, and are called upon for payments with a great deal of frequency, which adds to the work of the department. And if this were to go on to a greater extent, it would exceed the capabilities of the department. The lower you reduce the amount, the more frequent have the surveys to be made and all the machinery put into operation in order that these payments may be made. It was chiefly for that reason that we made the limit ns high as we did. I do not think that any great hardship is likely to be done in this case-at all events none that the companies ought not be expected to bear. Therefore I should be disposed to drop this portion of the conditions attaching to payments altogether from future subsidy Bills and confine payments to the ten-mile sections as was the law prior to that change. I would not offer any opposition to the present Bill because I think if it becomes law, it would not long continue in operation, as we should have to revert to the original conditions which existed before we made this change.
18i
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon.
On section 1.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In view of the statement made by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals that although offering no opposition to the Bill, he is in opinion that we should revert to the previous system of paying subsidies on the completion of ten-mile sections, it seems to me that it would be prudent for us, before proceeding still further in the direction upon which we entered in 1900, to have this Bill examined by the Railway Committee and have the report of the Committee before taking any action.


John Charlton: I am sorry to meet with the opposition of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier in this matter. If he understood all the circumstances, he would see that this does not involve any dangerous departure but is merely a provision to treat fairly and equitably projects already under way and nearly completed, and not place them at a disadvantage as compared with larger concerns. The denial of the provision asked for will work hardship in one or two cases, where roads with subsidies of less than $60,000 are nearly completed and in much better condition to ask for progress estimates than many larger roads which have asked for these estimates and received the money. I have introduced this Bill with a full knowledge of the facts. I do not think that the opposition of my hon. friend was called for, and I trust that the application will not be opposed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not deny that hardships may be caused in one or two instances but we have the foreshadowing of the granting of very considerable subsidies during the present session, and if the remarks which fell from the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals are to be entertained at all by the committee, it will be wiser' for us to revert to the old rule and pay on the completion of each ten-mile section. That is the reason why on a question of this kind we should have the opinion of the Railway Committee.


John Graham Haggart: We should have the policy of the government. This is an extension of an important principle in the old Bill and which the hon. Minister of Railways thinks is perhaps a bad principle. The government gives money to railways for what purposes ? That they may be of use in the sections where they are built, and they can be of no use until they are completed. On what principle then should the government be asked to advance money on a road which may never be completed and never used. Nearly the whole of the subsidy may be paid and the road never be completed or operated. I do not know the particular case the hon. gentleman mentioned and which he seeks to meet by the Bill. But it seems to me it cannot be of

much importance. The expenditure with regard to which progress estimates are required must he less than $60,000, and he seeks to lower the minimum $30,000. Surely, if the undertaking is of any importance whatever, the company are in a position to finish it; and when they finish it, they can get the full amount of subsidy they are entitled to. What I protest against is the advancing of money on progress estimates on a work where there is a possibility- not a probability only but even a possibility-of the road not being completed and used. Surveys, obtaining of the land, clearing it, putting it in shape to build the road -there may be advances on all these under the clause of the Railway Act, yet the road may never actually be built; and in that case the country simply loses the money paid in advance on the progress estimates.


Robert Laird Borden: There is another consideration to which, perhaps, the Minister of Railways and Canals will attach some importance. It has been stated in the House that subsidies for certain railways which are not now in operation were diverted in some way from the purpose for which they were intended. I have no knowledge of it myself, but if it is the case, as has been stated, does it not make it the duty of the government to announce a policy which will make more stringent the conditions touching the payment of these subsidies, rather than relax them ? I do not know how many of the roads would come within the operation of this Bill, nor have I any idea as to the roads referred to by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). But certainly the statements which have been made in this House with regard to this matter within the past few days should make us move in the direction of tightening the purse strings in the payment of these subsidies, rather than in the direction of a more lax system.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would move that the Committee recommend that this Bill be referred to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I would call the attention of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) to the fact that his motion is not in order. This motion is one to be made in the House, not in committee.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The motion is out of order.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


John Charlton: I do not know that I should offer any objection to this motion, nor shall I offer any. But I think that before we are through with the matter the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) will, perhaps, be ready to admit that he has been rather captious and unreasonable with regard to it. However, let that go.


John Graham Haggart: 


John Graham Haggart: It is not for the purpose of killing the Bill, but to make the motion in the House that the Bill be referred to the Railway Committee where it can be more fully considered.


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

Mr. EDWARD  A.@: LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 6) to amend the Railway Act. He said : Mr. Speaker. For the third consecutive session I deem it my duty to press this measure upon the attention of the House. I should feel like apologizing to the House for taking up time with this matter did I not know that it is not my fault that it had not already been disposed of. I have discussed the principle of this Bill on the floor of this House and in the Railway Committee over and over again during these three sessions. We have discussed it, I am sorry to say, without getting any further on than we were at the beginning. The government has seen fit, on each occasion, to take some way of disposing-of this Bill other than meeting it fairly and squarely and deciding for or against the principle. Two sessions ago, when the Bill was first brought up, I did not demur to its being sent to the Railway Committee, assuming that it would be considered in a reasonable way, brought down to the House in reasonable time and decided upon its merits. It went to the Railway Committee, therefore, I will not say with my actual consent, but without opposition on my part. In feeling that it was fair to give the government a trial with respect to it. But, in the Railway Committee, the government, with their majority, sent it to a small sub-committee, which disposed of it by reporting, practically, that it was not in the interest of the country to adopt it. That was adopted as a matter of course, first by the Railway Committee and then by this House, in consequence of the well known rule that the committees reports are to be adopted. Last session it came up in the same way, and on the second reading I felt it my duty to oppose it going to any Railway Committee, but it went in spite of the division that was taken, and it was there debated upon its merits to a considerable extent and was voted down, not on its merits, but in view of some promises made, some pledges of what would be done by the government in the meantime if it was allowed to stand. It was the opinion of the majority of the committee it should not be proceeded further with that session.
Now, sir, as you know, justice delayed is injustice, and we are here again another year without any expression of opinion against the merits of this Bill and without anything having been done. But I understand, and I want the Minister of Railways and Canals to correct me if I am wrong-I must be more or less uncertain about it until I see his Railway Bill, which has been read the first time

but is not yet printed for distribution-I understand that be proposes to refer this great question of the liabilities of railways killing animals belonging to farmers and others, to a railway commission without any positive declaration given by this House as to what principles are to guide that commission. If I am wrong about that, the Minister of Railways will correct me. If I am not wrong-and he does not rise to correct me- then I say at the outset that that is an absolutely wrong principle. There are 214 members in this House elected by our constituents to enact laws, and no railway commission ought to be allowed to decide from time to time, one year one thing and another year another thing, concerning this great question as to who is to be responsible for animals that may be killed on a railway by the railway company running its trains across highways. I say that such a large and important question as that should never be decided by any commission of gentlemen who are at perfect liberty to decide, as I say, one thing one year and another thing another year, and no owner of stock can know from one year to another where he stands, or what the law is, or what the law is likely to be next year. If that statute is amended so that justice is done, if the House, for instance, thinks that this Bill of mine should be carried, and if they think that a railway commission will do that which is reasonable and which we have a right to expect of them in enforcing it, the best way to get them do so is to pass a statute and oblige them to do it, only leaving it to them to carry out the details of the law which we pass. For that reason I am compelled to say at the outset that I feel that the only thing that we can do in the interest of the country is to fasten this responsibility upon the railway companies and by enactment to decide once and for all, right here, that the members of the House believe that it is right, and that the farmers should be protected in their rights, to secure which I am providing in my amendment. But referring it from time to time, first to a railway committee, then to a special committee, then to a commission that is to iuquire into the question, then to a permanent railway commission, that may, as I said, do one thing one year and another thing another, is, it seems to me, not to use a stronger word, trifling with the rights of the parties. It would be much better, much more proper for members on both sides of the House to stand up manfully and say :	I do not think or I do
think the law should be as the member for Lincoln says it should, therefore I will vote against it or for it. That is what I want the House to do, because I want to be governed by the majority, and I want the majority to vote upon an intelligent issue, understanding all the time that they are accomplishing something and not trifling with the question.
Now, not unduly to delay the House, but at the same time to present this case fairly, I must ask the indulgence of the House while I describe the main history of this legislation. In the early days of this country when the railways began to do business, the law was not at all what it is now. I have heard it said by opponents of this legislation which I have been introducing, and trying to get passed during the past three years-I have heard it said more than once that my legislation is radical, that it is going backwards, that we are not going forward as we ought to do, that we are allowing the farmers to go back in civilization, so to speak, allowing them to get careless, to become indifferent as to their rights and as to the rights that other people have against them. That is one view of it, that is a view that comes from the opponents of this Bill, and it is so partial that I think I am right in assuming that it originates with the railway companies, because the railways themselves have been going back and have declined to carry out what in the early days they felt they were obliged to carry out, and which they did carry out as long as they thought it was necessary being compelled to do so, and until they found that the representatives of the people were not as careful in watching the people's interests as they, the railway companies, were in looking after their own interests ; and they managed to get the law amended so that they were relieved of responsibility. Now, the original law is to be found in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1886, section 13. It declares that cattle-guards at all highway crossings suitable and sufficient to prevent animals getting on the railway shall be maintained and kept up by the railway. That was the whole law upon the subject at that time, that was an absolute liability, that was a responsibility thrown upon them to keep cattle-guards sufficient to prevent animals going on the railways. In 1888 the Railway Act was revised and consolidated, that section was re-written, and instead of their being required to keep cattle-guards on all highway crossings suitable and sufficient to prevent animals getting on the railways, it was amended so that they were required by section 194 of the Consolidated Railway Act of 1888, to maintain and erect on each side of the railway, through any township, fences with openings, gates or bars, sliding or hurdle gates, and so on. Also cattle guards on all highway crossings sufficient to prevent cattle and other animals getting on the railway. And with this declaration of liability added :
Until such fences and cattle-guards are duly made and completed, and if after they are so made and completed they are not duly maintained, the company shall be liable for all damages done by its trains or engines to cattle, horses and other animals, not wrongfully on the railway, and having got there in consequence of the omission to make, complete and

maintain such fences and cattle-guards as aforesaid.
Now that began to take away responsibility. They had then only to pay for the animals that were not wrongfully on the railway, and all this time there has been a section in this Act preventing animals from being lawfully upon the highway within half a mile of the railway crossing; so that when, in 1888, they got that section into the Act, that the animals should only be paid for by the railway if they were not wrongfully on the railway, then they were not responsible, and they are not responsible to-day in any case that can be suggested. They are responsible if the animal is not wrongfully on the railway. If the animal is not in control of a human being, as it has been decided by the courts, it would be wrongfully there, in view of the section of the Act which I last mentioned, the section that makes it unlawful for the animals to be within half a mile of a railway crossing; for then they are not rightfully upon the railway.
Now, what are cattle-guards for ? Is there a case that can be suggested by any gentleman in this House where a cattle-guard is required for animals who are in charge of a human being ? If an animal is in charge of a human being, one sees at once there can be no responsibility, because the human being would then be guilty of contributory negligence in allowing the animal to get upon the track. So we have since 1888 a statute which is absolutely nonsensical, a statute which ought to be repealed, if it is not amended, because it does not enact anything practicable. That legislation as it stands to-day is absolutely impracticable, it does not legislate for the redress of any grievance that can possibly exist. It does say they shall be responsible if they kill animals that are rightfully upon the railway, but at the same time they cannot get there in a case where responsibility would exist. That Act was further amended in 1890. It was amended so as to read :
If the company omits to erect and complete as aforesaid any fence or cattle-guard, or if, after it is completed, the company neglects to maintain the same as aforesaid, and if, in consequence of such omission or neglect, any animal gets upon the railway from an adjoining place where, under the circumstances, it might properly be, then the company shall be liable to the owner of every such animal for all damages, &c.
Then it goes on to enact that any animal allowed by law to run at large should be paid for. Now, I am coming to the case of an animal that is not allowed by law to run at large because that is the animal that requires to be protected. An animal escapes without the knowledge of the owner, goes down to the railway crossing, and passes on from the highway to the point of danger on the railway property. If the animal is killed there the owner Mr. LANCASTER.
cannot get paid for it. That is a condition of affairs that should be remedied and one which I have been endeavouring to have remedied for the last two years. I may say that the only argument that has been used against this legislation, so far as I know, is that there is a principle involved and that we should encourage the farmer to prevent his cattle from running at large. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The railway companies are deliberately violating an Act of parliament; they are deliberately refraining from carrying out the object of this legislation, they are not doing what it is contended they should do, they are not maintaining cattle-guards at highway crossings. That of course is no reason why the farmer should deliberately violate the minor law but it comes about in this way : The farmer's animal escapes without him knowing it. We must assume that he does not wish to break the minor law and that he is anxious to keep his animals at home. However, an animal gets upon the highway. Has he not a right to expect that it will remain upon the highway ? That is where he should be responsible for everything that happens to it. If it gets upon the highway through his carelessness or otherwise, it should be expected to remain upon the highway. But now, if it gets to the point on the highway where the railway crosses and is killed at the point of intersection the farmer should suffer the loss of the animal. It is fair enough that he should stand the expense of an accident happening at the point of intersection. Animals accidentally get upon the highway in different ways without the knowledge of the farmer. For instance, a neighbour visiting a farmer and then going away, may leave the gate unfastened, and though no act of negligence has been committed by the farmer, his animal may get upon the highway and go to the railway crossing. The farmer should lose the animal if it is killed while it remains upon the highway. The responsibility is fairly divided by the Bill which I have introduced, because the farmer sustains the loss himself if the animal is killed while it is on the highway ; that is, if it is killed at the point of intersection between the places where the cattle-guards ought to be. If there are cattle-guards provided the animal will pass along; if it is not killed at the point of intersection it will not be killed anywhere else, because, if this amendment is adopted and railway companies are obliged to provide cattle-guards, the animal will be prevented from getting on the railway property. Every owner of property in Canada has to fence his own property. The railway company has to fence its own property at common law, and if the railways and those opposing this legislation contend that we are violating a principle which we ought not to encourage the farmers to violate by allowing their animals to run at

large, they forget that they are violating a much older and stronger principle which is that they should fence their own property. But, we must be practical. I admit that a railway company must cross the highway and that it would not be possible to erect fences there. In the older countries they are even compelled to have gates which are moved from time to time as the train goes along, or they are compelled to tunnel underneath the highway or to bridge over it and in most of the states of the Union they are compelled to tunnel under or bridge over it. As the law stands to-day, in Canada, they are allowed to do what they can do in no other country. They do not have to protect the public with gates except where the Railway Committee of the Privy Council orders it in some very populous part of some very large city. They do not protect the farmer with gates when they cross on the level ; they are not obliged to go underneath or to bridge overhead. Then, it is said that in the interests of the country and of its development, we ought to encourage the construction and operation of railways, but the railway company ought to do something in order to prevent these accidents that occur without any deliberate or actual negligence on the part of the farmer. What can they be asked to do that will be less burdensome than that which my Bill will bring about ? They will be required to keep cattle-guards at the highway crossings to keep cattle from getting on the railway property. Is there anything harsh or unreasonable in that principle ? If they do not do this they will be obliged to pay for an animal that gets on their property because of their own negligence, and that is the only time they will have to pay for it. The responsibility is divided. It has been said that my Bill is one-sided. Well, I have asked hon. members on both sides of this House to draw me a Bill that will not be one-sided, and I have said to them that !f they would draw such a Bill I will support it-such a Bill as will carry out the principle of making a fair division of the responsibility. Not one of them has said that he could draw up a Bill that would better accomplish this purpose, and as this is a principle that should be carried out, I submit that it is fair that this Bill should be passed in the shape in which I prepared it. Now, as I said a minute ago, and I think it will bear repetition, the Bill that I am introducing here, and for which I have fought for three years, because I thought its adoption was in the best interests of the country, does not put all the responsibility upon the railway company. It puts more responsibility on the farmer than upon the railway company. It only puts upon the railway company the responsibility of carrying out what is plainly then-duty of fencing their own property so far as they can and at the same time do the business that they are chartered by the country to do. The railway companies
should either be willing to bridge over the highway, or tunnel under it, or provide cattle-guards. They should not have an unprotected and dangerous railway, at common law, running across the highway and they should not encourage animals to get upon their property for want of a cattle-guard to prevent them. The responsibility is chiefly placed upon the farmers, because, if you consider the matter, you will agree with me that the animal is much more likely to be killed at the point of intersection than on the railway. It is more likely to remain on the highway than anywhere else. If the cattle-guard is there there is only one place it can go ; that is, it can continue on the highway, but if the guard is not there there are three places it can go when it gets to the point of intersection. If the cattle-guard is not there the only way in which we can get a practical result is to make the railway answerable in damages if they do not do what you say they should do. If the law does not hold the railways responsible for animals getting on the railway because of the absence of a cattle-guard, you cannot expect the railways to put up a cattle-guard. When an animal gets to the point of intersection it has to turn to the right or to the left, or to go straight ahead, and if it goes straight ahead no danger will happen. It is our duty in this House to so legislate as to prevent loss to anybody. We do not legislate to put any loss on the railway or on the farmer, but we should legislate to prevent loss of any kind. If the animal at the point of intersection does not go straight ahead, then if there are no cattle-guards cr insufficient cattle-guards he will turn aside, get on the railway, and the chances are two out of three that it is the fault of the railway that the animal gets on the track. If there are not cattle-guards, the railway is responsible for two out of three causes of death ; that is to say the animal is twice as likely to be killed as not. Therefore, if a railway is required to have cattle-guards it cannot complain at being made responsible when it has no cattle-guards or cattle-guards that are not sufficient for the purpose for which they are intended. We ought to hear no more about this legislation being one sided. It has been said that you cannot get a cattle-guard that will on all occasions turn animals and that there are some animals that no guard will turn. That may be so. But it is also true that there are some fences that will not turn animals. I would like to ask those who oppose this legislation to apply the same rule to the railway company as they do to the farmer. Why cannot the farmer say :	I have an animal
which will jump over my fence and it is not my fault, and therefore you ought to provide some standard fence which if I put up and my animal gets over I cannot be held to be negligent. That is practically the argument that the railways bring against the farmers in this case. They say :	We

do not know of any guard that will keep animals from getting on our track, and we think therefore we ought to he allowed to escape all responsibility. Of course the railways entirely disregard the fact that 90 or 95 per cent of the animals would be turned back by the ordinary guard, but they argue that because there is a small percentage that will get over any cattle-guard that therefore they ought be at liberty to kill 100 per cent of the cattle and not be responsible for it. I wonder would the railways pretend for a moment that we ought to determine on a standard fence and then say to the farmer that.because there are some breachy animals that will get over that fence, they would pay for that animal if he is killed, and the farmer would not be responsible. It would be no more unreasonable for the farmers to contend that, than it is for the railways to contend that they should not carry out what by common law they are required to do, what by statute they were first required to do, but which they have for years escaped doing by virtue of the legislation of this parliament not having been watched on behalf of the people as energetically as it was watched on behalf of the railways. I have some further authority since last session for submitting to the House that the Bill which I now introduce is the only practical solution of the diffi-sulty. The Toronto ' Daily Star ' which ought to be an authority for some members of the government at least, spoke as follows on March 27th of last year :
Necessity is the mother of invention, and if the railways were responsible for animals killed anywhere but on the crossings, they would not be long in finding a cattle-guard that would largely, if not altogether, prevent animals from turning from the road into the track.
As- it is now, the railways in Canada have no interest in the question at all. They have abolished guards, and trust to the power of their engine to throw aside any animal that gets in the way.
This is not right, and parliament will not get much rest until it is made right.
In view of that expression of opinion in the Toronto ' Star,' I hope I shall get the support of the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock), although I have not had his support for this Bill before, so far as I am aware of. I think, Sir, that this matter should be dealt with now once and for all, and I trust this will be the last time I shall have to| address the House upon it. I do not wish the railways or the government or any one else to infer from that, that if the Bill does not pass you shall hear no more about it, for so long as I have a seat in the House, I shall try to get a remedy for this grievance, and I shall keep on knocking at the door in the hope that it will be opened some day. In view of the attention which has been given to this Bill during last session and since last session. In view of the fact that there is no other Mr. LANCASTER.
solution suggested, and in view of the fact that it has never been rejected by this House on its merits, I think I have good grounds for again submitting it to the House. Last year the Bill was referred to the Railway Committee and discussed thoroughly, but under that reference to the committee it only required fifty members of this House to prevent the Bill passing. Fifty members of that committee as against forty-three, a majority of seven, reported that in the opinion of the Railway Committee it was not wise to pass the Bill at that session. They did not report that it should not pass sometime, or that it did not provide a remedy for the evil, but that it was not wise to pass it during that session. Therefore, fifty members of the committee were able to accomplish what it should take one hundred and seven members, or more than half the House to accomplish. The right hon. the premier found fault with me for taking exception to the report when it came from the committee, and he suggested that I was practically appealing from the report of the committee and that it should not be allowed' because it was against the rule that reports of committees should always be respected by the House. Well, Sir, it is time for the House itself to take this thing into serious consideration and decide whether it is reasonable that a farmer should take all responsibility for any accident that may occur, and that the railway company should have no responsibility cast upon it. The railways are permitted to expropriate property, and to cross highways with their dangerous machinery, and yet they are not to be liable for any damage they may cause by reason of their operation. I grant that it is necessary to have railways! in order to carry on the business of the country, but why should they not be compelled to treat their neighbour, the farmer, the same as any other neighbour would be compelled to treat him ? Accidents will happen in spite of the most-absolute care; you cannot help a fence rail falling down or a gate blowing down and animals escaping. Under my amending Act if the animal does escape and gets to the point of intersection, and is there killed, the farmer will lose the animal ; but if it gets on to the railway from the highway the railway will be responsible for not having guards to stop it. The only way to get a good guard is, as the ' Star ' newspaper of Toronto says, to put the responsibility on the railway. If a railway company wants to get a new coupler, or a new brake, or a new steam whistle, or a new telegraph instrument, is it to be expected that the country at large or parliament will provide them ? No, the railway company finds all such things for itself, and it should be bound to find cattle-guards. They may not get guards that will turn back every animal ; but they will get guards that wil turn back 95 per cent of them. If this legislation passes,

they will perhaps pay slightly unfairly for about 5 per cent of the animals that will be skilful enough to pass over any guard; but is it not better that the railways should pay for that 5 per cent, even wrongly, than not pay for the 95 per cent rightly ? It is simply a question of the greatest wrong being done the greater number, or the greater right to the greater number. Because there is a trifling percentage of cases in which the result might be hard on the railways, that is no reason why they should escape all responsibility in 95 per cent of the cases.
I do not think I ought to trouble the House any longer on this question. I dare say other members desire to address you upon it. If the Bill passes its second reading, as I think it ought to, we shall all have an opportunity to discuss it in committee, if the House goes into committee upon it, as I trust it will ; and if any member there can propose an amendment which will provide a better remedy for the wrongs that exist or one more applicable to the rights of the railways, he will have my support in amending the Bill to that extent, so long as the principle of the measure remains, namely, that the responsibility ought to be on the railways to protect their own property, and to keep animals from getting on their property from the highway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I may say at once that I have no opposition whatever to offer to the second reading of this Bill. I shall propose, however, that the Bill, after being read a second time, shall be referred to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines. I shall do so for this reason, that it is quite impracticable for us to discuss in this House a question of such apparently contentious character with the same effect or advantage as we can before that committee. I have no fault to find with the desire which the hon. gentleman has expressed, that the utmost justice shall be done in connection with this serious trouble. I realize the gravity of it. I know there is a very strong public opinion, in some parts of Canada at all events, in respect to it. I know that many people desire a remedy. I am confident that what they desire is that when the remedy is applied, it shall be a just, fair and equitable remedy, and I am prepared to act to the utmost of my ability with any gentleman who is interested in this question, in order that a remedy shall be devised which shall be an ample remedy, but which shall also be a just and equitable remedy. When the Railway Committee a year ago dealt with this question, it was perfectly clear that there was a very divided opinion among the members of that committee as to the form which the remedy ought to take, and seeing that the committee were far from likely to agree upon this, I suggested that during the recess persons should be chosen who would examine into the question of cattle-guards, have tests made of all the
cattle-guards in use, and report at the conclusion of their labours what the result was ; and if they were able to report that one or more cattle-guards could be found which would answer the purpose and afford a sufficient protection, the government would introduce legislation whereby the use of such guard would be enforced. My hon. friend fell in entirely with that suggestion. If I am not mistaken as to what occurred, the hon. gentleman moved or seconded a motion in this House for the purpose of having the matter disposed of for the session in that way. After the session a commission consisting of two gentlemen was constituted. They have made investigations and held tests, and they are preparing a report, which I hope will be available in a very few days. Whether or not that report will be of material assistance to us in determining the character of the legislation which we shall adopt. I am not now in a position to say. But I am in a position to state here now that when this question shall have been dealt with by the Railway Committee, if that committee comes to the conclusion that the principle on which the law is now based should be changed and some other principle adopted as more equitable, then it will be the simplest matter in the world to incorporate such an amendment into the Bill creating the Railway Commission, and making it part of the general railway law of the country. That is the way in which 1 think this matter can be dealt with in a business like manner, and a manner that will produce the very best results.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: Did I understand the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to say that the commission has not yet reported ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not yet.


Jabel Robinson: Is it possible that they will report before this session is over ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Undoubtedly.


Jabel Robinson: This is a very important matter, and we want to deal with it this session.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We will engage that it shall be dealt with this session, when the Railway Bill is going through.


Robert Laird Borden: How long is it since that commission was appointed ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think the commission was appointed in August. They have been visiting different parts of the country, and the delay which has occurred has arisen largely from the desire of the experts to have every cattle-guard submitted to a test. There are some people who think that they have very effi-

cieiit guards and who have asked to have the tests still further applied. The tests will be applied very shortly and the government will then be in possession of the report of the commission.


Mr. T. G. SPROULE (East Grey).: I would like to ask how that one-eyed steer has fared lately ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am afraid that my hon. friend will have to wait for the report.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have always been in hearty accord with the principle of this Bill. I think it is intended to do justice to a very important class, who have scarcely had justice done them by the railway companies in the past. But I regret that the hon. Minister of Railways has not been more active in putting that commission in operation so that we might have had the report at the opening of the session.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You will ha.ve it very soon.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman knows that there are many delays and many dangers and difficulties which beset measures of this kind when not brought down early. They are apt for one reason or another to be put off to the end of the session and then summarily disposed of in a very unsatisfactory manner. That commission might reasonably have anticipated that after the long discussion we had last session, this House would be anxious to deal with the question at the earliest possible moment. Why is the report not down now in this, nearly the third week of the session? I am afraid that unless the commission are hustled by some one, their report will not be down until it will be too late for the House to deal with it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No danger of that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: From the somewhat lengthy experience I have had in this House and on the Railway Committee, I am inclined to view with suspicion the sending of Bills of this nature to that committee. I have found it to be frequently the graveyard of the hopes of those interested in such measures.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Let us hope that this will be an exception.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Some how or other such Bills come to very unfortunate termination in that committee, and I am afraid this will meet with a similar fate. After the lengthy discussion we had last year in this House and in the committee on a similar Bill, I should think that hon. members would be quite prepared to deal with this matter in Committee of the Whole and not send it to any other committee. I do not care what committee you send it to so long Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
as it is dealt with fairly and put before the House as it should be, without having to submit to the flat against it of some force we cannot account for. I think it would be fairly dealt with by the Committee of the Whole without any injustice to any of the interests concerned.


Mr. ROBERT JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that every railway charter contains a clause providing that the company shall provide sufficient cattle-guards, and certainly whenever our municipalities have granted bonuses, they have done so under the understanding that such protection shall be afforded. But it seems that there is another law in our statutes which prevents our farmers collecting from the railways compensation for animals killed on the track. We have been trying to have this defect in our law remedied, we have been trying to have the railway companies compelled to afford the farming community adequate protection, but after three years agitation in this House and in the country, nothing has yet been done, and our farmers have to suffer the loss of their cattle without being given the means of recovering compensation. What guarantee have we that this condition of things will not continue another year ? A railway company runs a train across a highway, that train kills cattle when on the railway property, and the owners can recover no compensation. We have laws which provide that when an animal strays into another man's field, it can be impounded, and there is nothing to prevent railways impounding cattle which stray on their property. From the start to the finish the railways have the advantage. If a man shoots an animal which wanders on to his property, he will have to pay for it, but a railway engine can kill an animal and the owner has no recourse. That is not treating the people fairly. And after we have had this question delayed for three years by being sent to committees, I think we ought to deal with it in this House in the Committee of the Whole and get through with it. Two years ago it was sent to a committee of five members, of whom two were in favour and three against compelling railway companies to put up better cattle-guards. It is time that something should be done. I do not see why the government should say what sort of cattle-guards a railway company shall build. The companies have accepted their bonuses on condition that they will furnish proper cattle protection, and are compelled to do so by their charters. It makes no difference to us whether the guards are of .steel or wood so long as they are effective, and the companies should be allowed to judge what kind of cattle-guards are required. All we ask is that they be efficient. That is what they agreed to put up when they got their charters and when they canvassed the municipalities for bonuses. This matter has been before the gov-
5G5

eminent three different years, and yet they are no further than when they started. I hope that parliament this session will do justice to the farmers and compel the railway companies to put up cattle-guards that will turn the cattle. All that the government have accomplished so far is to find out that this one-eyed steer, which has been referred to, can jump any cattle-guard which so far may be put up. I would ask that in all fairness we should deal with the railway companies as we would with any individual who broke the law.
Motion agreed to ; and Bill read the second time.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I move that this Bill be referred to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.
House divided on motion (Hon. Mr. Blair).
YEAS : Messieurs
Bazinet,
Beith,
Belcourt,
Bernier,
Bickerdike,
Blair,
Borden (Sir Frederick), Bourassa,
Bourbonnais,
Brown,
Bureau,
Calvert,
Campbell,
Carbonneau,
Carroll,
Christie,
Copp,
Costigan,
Davis,	.
Delisle,
Demers (LSvis), Desjardins,
Dugas,
Emmerson,
Ethier,
Fitzpatrick,
Fortier,
Fraser,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
Gibson,
Girard,
Gould,
Grant,
Harty,
Heyd,
Holmes,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Johnston (Cape Breton) Kendal],
Lang,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Laurior (L'Assomption) Lavergne,
Law,
LeBlanc,
Lemieux,
Lewis,
Lovell,
Loy,
Macdonald,
Mackie,
MacKinnon,
MacLaren (Huntingdon), Macpherson,
McColl,
McCreary,
McEwen,
McGugan,
Mclsaac,
McLennan,
Madore,
Malouin,
Marcil (Bagot),
Marcil (Bonaventure), Martineau,
Matheson,
Mayrand,
Meigs,
Mignault,
Mulock (Sir William), Murray,
Parmelee,
Paterson,
Proulx,
Reid (Restigouche), Riley,
Roche (Halifax),
Ross (Ontario),
Ross (Rimouski),
Ross (Victoria, N.S.), P.oss (Yukon),
Russell,
Schell,
Scott,
Smith (Vancouver), Stephens,
Stewart,
Sutherland (Essex), Sutherland (Oxford), Talbot,
Tarte,
Thompson , (Haldimand and Monck),
Tobin,
Tolmie,
Tucker,
Turcot,
Turgeon,
Wright.-99.
NAYS :
Messieurs
Alcorn.	Kidd,
Avery,	Lancaster,
Bell,	La veil.
Bennett,	Lennox,
Birkett,	Leonard,
Blain,	Maclaren (Perth),
Borden (Halifax),	McCarthy,
Boyd,	McGowan,
Broder.	McIntosh,
Bruce,	Monk,
Cargill,	Morin,
Carscallen,	Northrup,
Casgrain,	Pringle,
Clancy,	Puttee,
Clare,	Reid (Grenville),
Clarke,	Richardson,
Cochrane,	Robinson (Elgin),
Culbert,	Roche (Marquette),
Earle,	Seagram,
Gourley,	Sherritt,
Hackett.	Sproule,
Hale,	Taylor,
Halliday,	Thompson (Grey),
Henderson,	Tolton,
Hughes (Victoria),	Ward,
Ingram,	Wilson.-53.
Johnston (Cardwell).	PAIRS:
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Hyman,	Gilmour,
Dyment,	McCormick,
Logan,	Lefurgey,
Wade.	Simmons,
Cartwright,	Tupper,
McCool,	Vrooman.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill referred to Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order being called for :
Second Reading Bill (No. 18) To amend the Interpretation Act.-Mr. Monk.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) is not in his place. He has a Bill very much to the same intent and purpose as the one I have before the House, and I would prefer to await his arrival before discussing the merits of this Bill.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Stand.
Order allowed to stand.


TICKET OF LEAVE ACTS-RELEASES.
Mr.   T.@: CHASE CASGRAIN (Montmorency) moved for :
Copies of all Orders in Council, documents, papers, correspondence, &c., in relation to the release from imprisonment under the Ticket of Leave Acts, since the 1st of January, 1902, to the 12th of March, 1903. And a statement showing :-
1.	How many persons have been released from imprisonment under the Ticket of Leave Acts, since the 1st of January, 1902, to the 12th of March, 1903 ?
2.	Of what offences had they been convicted, and at what dates were they so convicted :


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.   T.@: CHASE CASGRAIN (Montmorency) moved for :
Copies of all Orders in Council, documents, papers, correspondence, &c., in relation to the exercise of the prerogative of pardon exercised by His Excellency the Governor General in cases of conviction of offences against federal or provincial law3, since the first day of January, 1902, to the 12th of March, 1903 ; and a statement showing :-
1.	The number of the persons in whose favour the prerogative of pardon was so exercised during the said period.
2.	Of what offences the said persons had been convicted.
3.	The penalties to which the said persons had been condemned.
4.	The dates when the convictions were pronounced against the said persons.
5.	And what date the prerogative of pardon was exercised in each case.
He said : In this case I have to ask the leave of the House to amend my motion in somewhat the same way as the one that has just been carried. The motion as I gave notice of it, called for ' the names of the persons in whose favour the prerogative of pardon was so exercised.' I ask leave to amend that by substituting ' number ' instead of ' names.'


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: Perhaps my hon. friend would allow that motion to stand for the present. It is my intention to oppose it on the ground that it is contrary to the well-established usage in England, and also to the practice which lias been adopted in the Justice Department. I make this suggestion because I have not been able to put my hand upon the particular case in which this rule was adopted in the Justice Department when Sir John Thompson was head of that department. I hope to have it within a day or two. I move that the debate be now adjourned.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the Minister of Justice look up the authorities ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps there would be no objection to furnishing us with a copy of that memorandum in the meantime.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: 


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I will have a copy made and send it to the leader of the opposition as soon as I have found the particular case I refer to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.

John Charlton: That this House is of the opinion that the laws of Canada should clearly and within narrow limits define the causes for which divorces may be granted. But that the present system of granting divorces by legislative enactment is unduly expensive, and often capricious, and unreliable. That if cause for divorce may exist, the means for obtaining a decree should be rendered less expensive than at present. And that as the justification of divorce by virtue of law, defining adequate cause, can only be established by investigation and evidence, the proceedings upon which such decree may be obtained are judicial in their character ; and that consequently divorce proceedings should be taken before, and decree of divorce emanate from a properly constituted divorce court.
He said : I stated last session upon an occasion when a divorce Bill was before this House, and when assigning reasons for my reluctance to act in a judicial capacity upon a matter of which I knew nothing, that I should this session introduce a motion asking for a change in divorce proceedings in the Dominion, at the same time laying stress upon the fact that in my opinion the method of granting divorces in Canada was unique in the respect that the decree emanated from a court not one-third, perhaps, the members of which knew anything of the case upon which they were passing judgment; that divorces were 'often subject to capricious influences, were uncertain in their character, and were in all cases expensive. For that reason I expressed the opinion then which is expressed in the resolution I have the honour to place in your hands now, that the method pursued in this country in divorce proceedings should be changed, and that the proceedings should take place before a judicial tribunal and not before a legislative body. The member of this House, the member of the Senate, on such a case acts in the capacity of a judge, and I have never felt in my thirty years' experience in the Canadian House of Commons that the question of divorce was treated with that degree of solemnity that it is entitled to. There has generally been manifested a spirit of levity, and often indeed influences have been brought to bear in securing a result which had little or nothing to do with the merits of the case. A member of this House in nine cases out of ten, if he has any opinion upon the matter at all, founded upon investigation, takes for granted the evidence that is received in another body, takes for granted the evidence in securing which he had no participation. He knows

nothing of the character of the witnesses, he knows nothing of the circumstances under which their evidence was given, he has had no opportunity to cross-question, which a judge necessarily must have in forming an opinion as to a case ; still he takes the report presented to him by the other branch of this national legislature and is called upon to act on that report as a judge in a judicial capacity. In giving my vote upon a divorce case I have never felt that I was acting in a way in which I was entitled to act. I have always felt that so far as my vote was concerned, I was taking action in the dark without a proper knowledge as to whether my action was justified or not. Now, I have always felt a desire to avoid this responsibility. I have always felt that a divorce was a judicial proceeding, that if a divorce was to be granted at all, the question of granting it was a matter of law and evidence, and was a proper subject for investigation and for action by a judicial tribunal.
There is another element in this question so far as this House is concerned which may sometimes, and perhaps has often prevented the consummation of proceedings that had been initiated and passed in the other House, and that is the fact that a large element in this House is opposed to divorce and do not believe in it under any circumstances whatever ; who are opposed to divorce per se, and who, as a matter of principle, will vote against any decree whatever. Now, if the case were referred to a court, and if the judge upon the bench entertained opinions which debarred him from granting a decree that the law provided for under certain circumstances, of course there could be no justice in the proceedings of that court. The very object of the court might be nullified by the prejudices of the judge, who would allow these prejudices to rise superior to the law and evidence, and to govern his conduct in that matter despite the law and the evidence. That is necessarily the case in this House, because there arc members here who religiously, and conscientiously, believe that divorce should never be granted. It may perhaps be a question whether it should be granted, and if I believed that there was no warrant for granting a divorce, I should never introduce a resolution of this kind, I should never propose the establishment of a divorce court.
But I believe there is Divine warrant for divorce under certain circumstances. I believe that divorce, as the resolution provides, should be confined within the narrowest limits, and that there is only one cause that will justify the granting of a decree of divorce, and that cause is laid down in Holy Writ, laid down by the Saviour in two passages in Matthew, where it is said that divorce, except for the cause of fornication, is not permitted and cannot be granted. But for that single offence, for the offence of infidelity, I think we may say
that we have Divine warrant for granting a divorce. Well, if we assume that is the case, and we do assume it in our proceedings in this House, we do assume it in the laws in force in this Dominion-if, I say, that is the case, then the question arises, in what way that provision of the law should be carried into effect. In what way should this offence be provided for ? What should be the machinery provided ? Should that machinery be of a cumbersome, costly, unworkable character, liable to be set aside by prejudice, or counter influences, or political influence ? Should such be the kind of a court to deal with this question, or should we establish, as has been established in all other civilized countries except Canada, so far as I am aware, a judicial tribunal, a divorce court to deal with this question ?
As I stated a moment ago, a divorce decree under the law is a question of law and evidence. The proceedings are properly and strictly judicial, but the proper conduct of proceedings of this character is not attainable in the parliament of Canada. Strictly judicial proceedings, entirely free from all prejudice, entirely free from all influences that may sway the opinions of the members, or influence the decision of the case, such proceedings, I say, are not attainable in a legislative body such as this, or in any other similar body. You must have judges who will examine the case, hear the evidence, and be governed by the law in arriving at a decision, impartially governed by the law as it exists, which defines what their actions should be on the evidence that is taken, proving to them whether cause for divorce exists.
Now if divorce under the constitution is a legal right on the part of any person who is aggrieved, who is sinned against, when the offence has been committed under the law that makes it proper for him to apply for a decree of divorce, If, I say, that is a legal right, then the great mass of British subjects in Canada should be at liberty to avail themselves of that right under the law. The expense is now onerous, the inconveniences and difficulties that beset the applicant are very great. The times when this case can be tried are very infrequent, they must be tried when this parliament is in session. Witnesses, respondents, applicants all must come, perhaps from very long distances, and they must dance attendance here upon the Senate. These proceedings are surrounded by circumstances that are apt to deter people of fine feelings from attempting to come here at all. Great publicity attends these investigations and all the circumstances attendant upon a trial be-for the Senate, of an application for a divorce are of a repellant character,! are of a non-judicial character and are of a character so antiquated and so full of objections that it is time a change was established in reference to this matter. It would be better, I believe, Mr. Speaker, to abolish the

privilege of divorce entirely, than to continue proceedings as they have been continued and are continued at the present time. It would be better to abolish them altogether or to have a properly constituted divorce court to take cognizance of cases of this kind. I assign briefly, for I shall not detain the House at any great length on this question, the reasons to be urged against the present procedure. The first of all is undue publicity, a degree of publicity that is not beneficial to public morals, a degree of publicity that is not dignified or desirable. I assign, in the second place as a reason for a change in the method of obtaining divorce, the great inconvenience inflicted upon the parties who appeal to this House for the remedy which ought to be placed within their reach in the easiest and most expeditious manner. I assign as another reason the prohibitive cost. As the law now stands the rich man may take his proceedings here and get his redress, but the poor man is absolutely barred out from making an appeal for what he deems to be and what the law says Is an act of justice. Another reason I assign for a change in the procedure is the liability to a miscarriage of justice here as has been the case and as is liable to be the case. As we all know the result depends upon the condition of the House. Those who believe that divorces are permissible under certain circumstances may be in the majority at one time while the elements opposed to divorce under any circumstances may have a majority at another time and thus the case miscarries and the Bill is lost. Whatever may be the circumstances, whatever may be the evidence, whatever may be the reasons that exist for putting that Bill through if it so happens that there is a certain element in the House in the ascendancy for the time being the Bill will be lost. That element of uncertainty exists to such an extent that justice may often miscarry. Another reason I assign is that personal interest may and often does affect the result of the trial of these cases in the parliament of Canada. These are some of the reasons for providing for a change in the mode of procedure in reference to the granting of divorces.
The reasons that I would urge in favour of a divorce court are that the proceedings before such a court are strictly judicial ; no other elements will enter into the case, no uncertainty, or doubt, or political influence being exerted by the element that is opposed to divorce under any circumstances whatever. The proceedings will be strictly judicial and the case will be decided upon the evidence and under the law. Another reason is that there will be an impartial administration of the law. Another reason is that it will minimize the cost and inconvenience, not that I would admit, Sir, that it is a desirable thing to pro-Mr. CHARLTON.
mote divorce by rendering the thing easier, but the law assumes, when it puts upon the statute-book a cause for divorce, that it is a proper thing to apply for, divorce under the provisions of the law. ' It assumes that where a party is sinned against to the extent that he is entitled to apply for a legal remedy he should have his remedy. If the law contemplates that the aggrieved party should have a remedy, then it is the height of injustice to make the securing of that remedy, so difficult, so inconvenient, and so excessive in cost as to neutralize the effect of the law. And so, we have under this proposed arrangement of a divorce court the minimum of cost, the minimum of inconvenience, and an administration of the law that is speedy, impartial and to a certain degree inexpensive. In addition to this we would avoid indefensible delays. Here we have a parliament meeting once a year. Perhaps an attempt may be made to institute divorce proceedings and the case will go over for another year. The delays are intolerable, the expenses prohibitive, while with a divorce court these cases could be tried promptly, tried according to the usages of law and order, and tried and decided in accordance with the evidence. Now, if divorces are to be given at all, there should be some degree of solemnity, some degree of attention to appearances in the proceedings and in the granting of divorce. Do we have that here ? Are there not often scenes of levity, are there not often undignified and uncommendable features in parliament in connection with these proceedings, features that would be disgraceful to a law court if it was called upon to give a decision upon a case of such momentous consequence as that of divorce. We would invest the trial, in case we establish a divorce court and the deliverance of that court, with not only the supposition that there was justice done, but with the unquestionable fact that the decision would be in accordance with justice. We would invest these proceedings with dignity, we would have them conducted impartially in conformity with the law and with the evidence of the case and we would remove a stain from our judicial proceedings that now exists through the operation of our divorce laws the granting of divorce by this House of Commons. It is surprising, Sir, that thirty-five years, after confederation, this crude, objectionable, expensive, cumbersome, ineffectual system should be allowed to continue. It is time that this state of things was brought to an end. It is time that we had conformity in this respect to the usages of other enlightened states. It is time that we had a court established charged with the duty of dealing with these cases in accordance with the provisions of law and in accordance with the testimony placed before that court under which its decisions would be given and which would be of a

character that would command public respect, that would do justice and meet the requirements of the case.


Jabel Robinson: The only divorce court we have in this country is the Senate, and it seems to me that there ought to be some other court.
I am not one of those who would like to see divorce granted as in other places for trifling causes such as incompatibility of temper, but I do not think that the Senate of Canada is the proper place to try these cases. It is deplorable that they should publish the proceedings relating to divorces in the Senate and send the evidence to every member of this House. The most frightful trash I ever read in my life has been put in my hands since I have been a member of parliament. The page boys get hold of this, and all classes of people get hold of it in this city, and I am strongly opposed to this evidence being sent from the Senate and distributed all over the country. It is contaminating-I was going to use a stronger word. I think that the hon. member (Mr. Charlton) has done well in bringing this matter before the House, and if no action is taken on the divorce question itself, I hope something will be done to prevent that filthy evidence being printed' by the Senate.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: My hon. friend from Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) brought a similar motion to the attention of the House on a former occasion.


John Charlton: I beg to say that I have never brought in a motion of this kind before. I spoke on the second reading of a divorce Bill, to protest against the existing system, but I have not before brought a motion.


An hon. MEMBER.: It was Mr. Britton's Bill.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes ; my hon. friend (Mr. Charlton) expressed the same opinion on that occasion as he did to-day. The House at that time did not endorse his views, and so far as I know, nothing has occurred since to induce the House to change the attitude it took on that occasion. My hon. friend (Mr. Charlton) told us that Canada is the only civilized country which has not a divorce court. To a large extent that assertion is perfectly true, but I do not think it is a blot upon the fair name of Canada, that for the thirty-five years since confederation, no pressing want has been found for a divorce court. For my part I think it is always a grave matter to change, even by way of improvement, the institutions of a country. If the people are satisfied with their institutions it is far better to leave them as they are even though in the eyes of some they may be deficient.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have no doubt that among many people in this country there is a disposition to believe that Canada, like. some other countries, should have a divorce court. This opinion, however, is far from being unanimous, and so far as public opinion has the right to speak and can speak in this matter, none of those evidences by which public opinion does reach parliament have come to us upon the floor of this House. There have been no petitions inviting Canada to establish such a court; there have been no resolutions passed anywhere in the country, except on some occasions by religious bodies of certain denominations who hold strong views upon the subject. But these resolutions are far from being general and far from representing the whole country. Therefore, so long as more is not heard from the public opinion of the country, so long as no general demand is made in favour of such a court, I think Canada ought to be satisfied to leave things as they are at the present time.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is no discredit to Canada ; on the contrary it is to the credit of Canada that there are so few demands for divorce. In Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia there are divorce courts which have existed prior to confederation, and so far as I am aware, the applications for divorce are so few and far between, that the judges of these courts have much of a sinecure. In the remaining provinces divorce must be sought by a private Bill originating in the Senate, and even in that case, I am glad to say, there has been no increase in the number of applications from year to year. The records from confederation to the present day show that the number of applications for divorce has not increased, although the country, I am glad to say, has increased in population and in many other ways. It is a testimony to the good morals of Canada that we are so free from the causes which generally lead to divorce. Public opinion as a rule has not expressed itself in favour of such a reform in our system, if reform it can be called, and I think my hon. friend (Mr. Charlton) ought to be satisfied to let well enough alone. If the time comes-which I would deplore sincerely, and which I believe will never come-when public opinion will move in this matter, and the morals of this country instead of improving would degrade to an extent so as to make the number of applications for divorce more numerous than they are now ; then my hon. friend (Mr. Charlton), holding the views which he does, might be justified in coming before parliament I speak with some diffidence on this question, because I belong to a persuasion which does not permit of divorce ; but putting aside that feature of the case altogether, and appealing to those whose views are different upon the ques-

tion ; appealing to those who believe that under certain circumstances divorce ought to be allowed, it seems to me that the argument is overwhelming that there is no necessity for the establishment of such a court, and I hope that will be the view taken by this House.
At sis o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Hon.   WM@: ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Mr. Speaker, evidently the spirit of reform is dead in this House. The representatives from Ontario used to pride themselves on being great reformers, and yet, on a question of so much importance as this they appear to be indifferent, and to be willing to leave on the records of this Dominion such a crude, I was going to say savage, way of dealing with a subject of this kind as we have at present. Why the savages do better in this manner than we do. They confine their divorces to the same cause as our Saviour did, and when they find any unfaithfulness on the part of one side or the other, particularly if the squaw is unfaithful, the Indian takes her to the camp where her people reside, and there the divorce is completed. I think there is some decency in that, compared with the way in which we deal with the matter. Let us look at it. A man may come here from the farthest part of New Ontario. He has to pay $200 ; he lias to pay all the expenses of his witnesses ; he goes before a Committee of the Senate, composed of men who perhaps have no experience or training in legal matters, they take the evidence, and that evidence is submitted to both Houses. I need not say anything about the nature of the evidence itself. It is often so filthy that the pigs would not sleep on it if it were placed before them as a bed. The charwomen who go to clean the Senate in the morning will get piles and piles of printed paper ; they take it home, they scatter it among their families, and it is read there to their moral injury. Why should not the Dominion of Canada copy the reform that has been in existence in New Brunswick, in British Columbia, and in Nova Scotia, on this matter ? In Nova Scotia the case is tried before a judge of the Supreme Court, and not a trace of the evidence is copied or goes into any of the papers. The only statement is that such and such a case has been tried before Judge Graham, and he has granted or refused the divorce, as the case may be. That is all that the world knows of the proceedings in the case. When the maritime provinces came to be united with the Dominion, we forced certain reforms on the people of Canada. At that time dual representation existed in Ontario and Quebec, but by the good example which we brought to this House, that system was abolished. Then you had elections on differ-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
ent dates, and the strongest seats, those most likely to return men favourable to the government of the day, were contested first. We abolished that system, and induced the Dominion of Canada to accept a simultaneous polling day, which was in force in the maritime provinces. Now, I think the Dominion should go a step further and copy our method of dealing with divorces, which is the only rational one, and which does justice to the poor as well as the rich. The law as you have it now is only for rich people, and does the grossest injustice to the poor, who cannot afford to avail themselves of it. In the maritime provinces we have no distinction of that kind, and I am happy to say that I believe the number of divorces which take place in those provinces is as limited as the number in the Dominion. We can speak with pride of the high moral character of our people in that respect, although the law as it exists makes it easy for them to obtain divorces. Now, I think that a sense of justice should lead this House to see that equal justice is done to the poor as to the rich. If that were done, there are people now in the Dominion of Canada who would avail themselves of the law ; but, being poor, they cannot avail themselves of it as it exists. I am not going to say much more on this subject, but I think it is time that people who claim to be reformers should take this subject up and abolish the present system, which is crude and is certainly not found in any other civilized country in the world. The premier said there were no petitions for this change. I do not remember that there were any petitions for these other reforms which I have mentioned. I do not know that there was a single petition for the abolition of dual representation or for simultaneous polling when these measures were adopted. I do not think that is any reason at all. If my hon. friends the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) were free to speak their minds, they would speak boldly and logically and effectively on this question. They do not want to offend their master who presides over them, but they know very well that the law that exists at present in Canada is one we would never think of adopting in the enlightened maritime provinces. I do not expect that anything I say on this subject will have the least influence on this House ; but I think the country will in time see the necessity of making such a change in the method of dealing with this matter as will bring about something like equal justice for the poor as well as the rich in the Dominion of Canada.


Hon. DAVID TISDALE (South Norfolk).: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the motion proposed by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) is one involving, much more important considerations than have

at times been attached to it in this House. In all civilized countries, I believe, the law of divorce is recognized. In respect to this divorce law Canada is unique among the civilized countries of the world. There is no judicial law of divorce in this country. There are divorce courts in several of the provinces, as the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has so well explained. The proposition, therefore, is a broad one, and in my opinion ought not to be dismissed from serious consideration because of the fact that heretofore the hon. gentlemen who have brought it before the House have not succeeded in interesting the House in it sufficiently to make any progress with it. The hon. gentleman who last brought this subject up in the House is now a distinguished judge. I refer to Mr. Justice Britton, who when he represented Kingston in this House, brought this matter before and excited a more exhaustive discussion than my hon. friend's motion has brought forth. The result, however, was nil, and certainly in view of the position which the right hon. the Prime Minister has taken, the present motion is not likely to be any more successful. But I go with the hon. gentleman who last addressed the House (Hon. Mr. Ross).
I think with him that even if the leader of the government takes, on a matter of this kind a contrary view to that entertained by many other members of this House, that is no reason why those who are in favour of the motion should not be at perfect liberty to support it without impairing their political allegiance in any way. I am a strong Conservative, generally classed as a Tory, and I believe that although party government is the best for the well being of the country, still, unless there is a question of government involved, we should, on each side of the House, be free lances and freely express and assert ourselves on all questions beyond the pale of party discipline. This will stamp our legislation as being of a higher standard, and show the people that we are not mere automata to be freely moved at the will of the leaders on either side. The question before the House is a very broad one, to be considered from all points of view, and I must say that from what I have heard of divorce, and in view of the fact that all free civilized countries acknowledge that under certain circumstances divorce is justifiable, I am in favour of the motion before the House. I do not of course expect every one to entertain the same view, but one of the great lessons taught by free institutions, especially in a country governed by British institutions, is that we can differ in our religious faith and recognize that the views of those who differ from us are entitled to every respect, and that while we may differ in opinions, we agree that the majority must prevail and we can be very good natured and sensible over it. I am one of those who believe that divorce is a necessity, but at the same time I Have been brought up in the old school -which teaches 19
that we ought to have as little of it as possible. One of the strong objections to any change in our divorce laws is the fear entertained by the ordinary domestic people of the country that any change may lead us to fall into the other extreme of the too great freedom of divorce which prevails in the great republic to the south of us. I think myself that that feeling is merely a prejudice, but the strongest argument that could be presented against any change is that which was made by the right hon. the Prime Minister. He claimed that there was no great call for it. I agree, however with the hon. member who has just taken his seat that the fact that there are no petitions calling for this change is not a good reason for not granting it. I am not so much of a believer in petitions as I was in my younger days, because my experience has taught me that many of those petitions are the result of the agitation of some individuals, who want to make us believe that there is a great cry in the country, when in reality there is not. I am of the opinion-and I think most hon. members will agree with me-that according to the capacity which God or nature has given us we are responsible for our actions and judgments, and I am not disposed to give any heed to petitions except when there is something in them which appeals to my judgment or when they spring from something which I believe calls for action on my part. Is the right hon. the Prime Minister well founded in his statement that there is no desire in this country for a change in our divorce law ? I think he is only right to the extent of the dread to which 1 refer on the part of many people that a change would bring about too much freedom of divorce, but I submit that this parliament of Canada ought to be responsible to the public for a definition of the causes or reasons for which divorce should be granted, and I understand that my hon. friend's resolution is based upon that principle. This House ought to define these . causes and be careful not to make them too extensive. I am one of those who believe that the trying of divorce cases should be relegated to a judicial tribunal. A judicial tribunal could better take the evidence and in every way be more desirable and more competent than any committee of this parliament, and that is a strong answer, to the plea of the right hon. the First Minister that there is no call for any change. If we can devise a simpler, a better and cheaper tribunal than the one we now have, both Reformers and Conservatives must agree that it would be wise for us to do so. This question has been brought before the House within my memory several times. Long before I had the honour of being in parliament, it was introduced. It has been stated that the principal reason against the establishment of a divorce court is a religious one. Well, there is no one who respects the religious convictions of others



5 SO
more than I do. I have proved this in times, past ; when it was not in my interest politically to do so, and I am prepared to show the same spirit in the future. The religious views of every one ought to be respected, but when we come to a question of this sort, we come to a question of moral suasion, and until we learn to stand up face to face and consider it in all its phases, we will not be apt to come to any satisfactory conclusion.
And I am sure that every hon. gentleman within the sound of my voice and every Catholic that knows me or has ever heard me speak, will do me the justice to say that I am as ready to concede to them full freedom of opinion as I am to claim it from others, ready to be convinced by them, and to change my views or prejudice or whatever you call them. My claim is that, assuming that we are to have divorce, a judicial tribunal can best deal with the evidence in divorce cases. The proceedings before those tribunals will not involve the danger of injuring public morals that may attach to our present system. As my hon. friend (Mr. Charlton) has said, the evidence will be confined to a court and not be spread throughout the country by having printed copies of the evidence sent out, very much of it of a nature that we would not desire to see in the bosoms of our families. Therefore, on moral grounds it would be better to make this change. On legal grounds, there can be no question. The evidence upon questions involving the marriage tie should be taken in a court of law, for there is only one thing more solemn than the marriage tie, and that is the belief in a personal God and a future life. If these divorce cases are to go before any tribunal, they should be sent to the best and soundest tribunal. Beyond all peradventure, my hon. friend (Mr. Charlton) is right, and we should thank him for bringing this matter before us. The consideration of these grave matters relating to the very foundations of our social life must have the effect of improving, elevating and strengthening our people. We must decide these questions according to the principles of British freedom, for, under that flag, which now, I believe, is being recognized more than ever as holding the freedom of the world with other enlightened nations, there is no man, be he heathen or Christian but is assured of freedom such as no other but British institutions can secure for him. If it is necessary, as I believe it is, and as the practice of all civilized nations seems to sanction, that society should authorize the severance of the marriage relation, the bond should be unloosed only upon conditions which this parliament lays down. We should restrict as closely as possible the grounds upon which the divorce shall be allowed. But, having provided for this, we should relegate the rest to the courts of our land, which I believe are, and which history, I am glad to say. proclaims to be. in this as in other


David Tisdale: British countries, the best fitted to pronounce a verdict in such matters.
Mr. HAU6HTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe). I am a little surprised to find that the House, apparently, takes no great interest in this very important question. The reason may possibly be found in the suggestion made by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Ross) that a number of hon. gentlemen in the House-amongst them, if I understand him, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding)' and the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick)-were not free to take the stand that they would like to take in this matter. In our deliberations last session, we learned from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) who moved this resolution a good deal as to the inner workings of the Reform party, or Liberal party, as they are usually called, and from the hon. member from Victoria we are again learning to-night something more as to the tendencies of that party. The hon. gentleman tells us that Ontario, at one time, prided itself upon its reform principles. If the hon. gentleman is referring to the members who form a majority of the representation from Ontario in this House, I do not know that he has any reason to attack them upon this question, because, I am not aware that, as yet. any of them have declared themselves hostile to the resolution. But we can well understand such remarks from an hon. member who has had long experience of Liberal practices, who can look back to the day when the position of the party upon many questions was not what it is to-day, who can look back to the stand taken in this House by the Liberal opposition and to the stand taken in Ontario years ago, and contrast it with the unfortunate position occupied, for instance, by the Liberal party in Ontario to-day.
Now, as to what the hon. gentleman has suggested as to the desirability of secrecy of proceedings in these cases, we need not go into a careful discussion of that matter row. because, if it is determined by the House that it. is desirable to change the mode of procedure in obtaining a divorce in the Dominion of Canada, the details of the measure and the procedure to be fixed can be dealt with later on. I am not sure, however, that we should do wisely to revert to the old system of jurisprudence with its secret proceedings, as secrecy was then understood. There may be many things to be said in favour of the position advanced by the hon. member for Victoria as regards not transmitting the records of these proceedings in all their noisome details to the public through the newspapers. But. on the other hand, I do not understand that in Nova Scotia they have an absolutely secret tribunal such as obtained in days gone by. As to the question of lessening of costs, that, too. is a debateable subject. In the course of my practice as a lawyer, I have known many instances of parties who con-

581 moved this resolution. X had no very great desire to speak upon it because I did not feel that I could add anything to what lion, members of the House know and understand more thoroughly than I do. I felt that I could say nothing but what could be very much better said by many lion, members of this House of greater experience and ability, but I venture to say, that when an important question like this comes up it is just as well that we should have an opinion upon it one way or the other.


Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).: Mr. Speaker,
I suppose we must acknowledge that in this case, as in several others, we owe a considerable debt of gratitude to the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) who is not afraid to face the indifference, or the quiet and sometimes effective inertia of the public and who has on several occasions, and in connection with a good many different subjects which are of great importance, found himself capable of taking hold of a case long before it has received popular support. It is gratifying to And that while there is not very much evidence of great interest there is a great deal of gravity and decorum about the debate so far as it has proceeded. There is no disposition to treat the subject with levity or to improve the opportunities which it affords for jocosity, but, evidently the House is disposed to regard the matter as of a somewhat serious character and of very great importance. It cannot be forgotten, in dealing with this matter, that the subject of divorce is inevitably associated with our civilized life. From the beginning of time almost, at least, from a very early date, in fact since marriage was established as an ordinance, occasional interruptions to married life have arisen from various causes. In Canada the proposition of the hon. member for North Norfolk would not materially change the position of affairs. In the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and British Columbia, divorce courts are established and have been established since before confederation. These give relief from time to time to those parties who find the conjugal bond one of intolerable weight and one which must impose conditions to which they can no longer comfortably submit. Divorce is a subject that must be dealt with and although the effect of the sentiment in the province of Quebec has so far and probably will perhaps for ever prevent the institution of such a court in that province, still, we find that in the absence of provisions by which married persons can secure the relief which the divorce action affords they do, in the cases of the several provinces, where divorce courts do not exist, overcome that difficulty by appealing to the law of our country which enables them by legislative enactment to procure the relief which the courts of their provinces cannot afford. The pre-Mr. LENNOX.
sumption is that the number of divorces granted would not be materially increased if the present system Were done away with and if we substituted a more easy, economical and what would be of the utmost importance, a procedure which would involve much less publicity. Reference has been made to the character of the proceedings before the Senate and of the circulation of the evidence disclosing the relations between the married persons to the action and other corespondents. Literature of this character would not be tolerated at all if circulated in our country in the ordinary way. The courts and legislatures of the country would forbid the circulation of such material as this through the mails, of such material as under our system is put out in large quantities and which finds its way by one course or another into the hands of persons who should not have access to it. It is most unsatisfactory that such must be the case and I feel some sympathy with the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) who really seemed to look upon it as a grave infraction of his rights that he was compelled to receive, at the hands of the Senate, communications of such a very improper character. Still, I suppose it is an infliction to which we must all be prepared to submit unless we should determine to rid ourselves of that infliction by giving our moral, our personal and our active support to the cause which the hon. member for North Norfolk has espoused. It would be utterly wrong and intolerable that we, here, as a branch of the legislature of Canada, should give our contributory action to the effecting of a divorce without acquainting ourselves with the circumstances, the grounds and the evidence upon which the petitioner relied in each case of divorce. I do not know that all the members read the evidence in every case, but, certainly, in every case it is the duty of every hon. member, representing a constituency and forming part of the legislating body of Canada. to give effect to the legislation which secures a divorce, to satisfy himself that the evidence is sufficient to warrant him in voting so as to give legal effect to the Bill which has its origin in the other Chamber adjacent to this. Now, that the subject is of considerable importance a review of the statistical record of our country in connection with it will show. Taking the figures as they appear in the last volume of the Year-book up to .Tune, 1901. we find that in the provinces of Canada which have no divorce courts, parliament has granted divorces numbering seventy-one. Seventy-one divorces have been granted by the parliament of Canada in the course of thirty-four years, not a very large number, it is true. In the province of Nova Scotia, in these thirty-four years, 102 divorces were granted by the courts. In the province of New Brunswick seventy-three divorces were granted and in British Columbia fifty-four divorces
5S5


were granted in that time. In the case of Prince Edward Island there is evidently a state of conjugal felicity which can scarcely be paralleled in any other portion of His Majesty's dominions. In that little island, the garden of the gulf, the most highly civilized, prosperous and happy under the flag of His Majesty in North America, not one single divorce has been granted in these thirty-four years. Evidently, in the province of Prince Edward Island there is an understanding of the advantages, the benefits and blessings of union that the other provinces fail to realize to the same extent as they do in that happy country. The result is that in Canada 300 divorces have been granted in thirty-four years, or almost an average of nine divorces per annum. We are told that if there were greater facilities for divorce there might be more divorces granted, and therefore, it might be argued by some that by furnishing divorce courts in the several provinces and by doing away with the present tedious, cumbersome, expensive and odious system of coming before the Senate of Canada and substituting a more convenient, more cheap and less public process of hearing applications before a judge of the Supreme Court of a province, divorces might be multiplied in number. We have no evidence of this to show this would be the case, and I do not know that any strong presumption exists that it would be. One thing that is established as a fact is, that in Canada for the last thirty-four years, three hundred divorces have been granted-six hundred married persons have secured release from the marital tie, and that is sufficient to show that there is a want of civilization and of social life as organized, which cannot be winked out of sight. Marriages are necessary to our civilization, and everything that tends to heighten and elevate and improve the condition of woman amongst us, is something that ought to receive our most anxious support. And concurrent with the institution of marriage; apparently inevitably associated with it, must be some reasonable provision by which in certain cases one party or the other who is bound by the marriage bond may secure a release when its conditions become intolerable or too irksome for them to bear. I find on further reference to the Canadian Year-book, that according to the census of 1901 there were in Canada 061 divorced persons-339 men and 322 women. That is almost exactly the number that would be supplied by our divorce courts since 1867, the year of confederation, were all the parties to these divorces still living. But manifestly a comparatively large percentage of the divorced persons who are presently living in Canada must have procured divorces elsewhere. It is utterly impossible that the 600 persons who have been divorced in Canada since 180" could now be alive. The great probability is that at least one-third of these persons
are dead. As a product of our own divoice courts and of divorce proceedings taken in the parliament of Canada, there are possibly 300 divorcees in this country, and the other 361 who are in Canada at present must have procured divorces somewhere else, or must have been divorced before they came to Canada. It is quite well known that in certain cases, in all the provinces of Canada, persons who are determined to procure divorce do go to the states of the neighbouring union and seek separation from their married partners in the courts of that country. The result is unsatisfactory, because those persons who being Canadians go to the United States and there secure a divorce, are only divorced so far as they continue residents of the United States, and they cannot return to Canada, and they cannot resume the marriage tie with another person, without practically bringing themselves within the operation of the law against bigamy, or making themselves liable to action for adulterous living. If, as I think we must grant; if there be an absolute certainty that to a certain extent-not at all to encourage, but on the other hand to be repressed and to be controlled by making the conditions onerous and the reasons for granting divorces of the most grave and serious character, limiting it so that there would be. no flying with flippant ease to this court for relief; to make the conditions so that it would be only under circumstances absolutely in the eyes and known to the neighbours and fellow-citizens of the parties concerned justifying the divorce that such a thing could be obtained-with these conditions it seems to me that it is the duty of the people of Canada not to lose sight of this question, but to consider whether or not there be not a number of fellow-citizens in our country who are entitled to receive at our hands a strictly limited opportunity to secure release from the marriage tie when circumstances render it impossible for them longer to bear it with comfort. It is very evident that this is a question which will not have many advocates in parliament. It is not a matter in respect to which any person who is personally interested could easily make himself or herself heard. It would be only on a personal appeal, and that of a very strong character, that any member of parliament could be induced to advocate such a matter. Therefore, it is all the more important that this being a question which to the most of us Is absolutely impersonal, that we should not on that account lose sight of its importance, but should rather devote ourselves to a fair and earnest consideration of it, the more so on account of the fact that it is a thing that can scarcely count on very hearty support on the part of any of the representatives of the people in this parliament. There must be to a very great extent. a large feeling of indifference in the minds of most of us here, and yet a little

58S
reflection will show that in this matter we are dealing with one of the institutions of our civilization which is inseparable from it, and one which ought to be most carefully controlled. An avenue ought be opened up through which escape may be had from the conditions of married life when they become intolerable, and at the same time every condition of secrecy, every condition of solemnity, every condition that would prevent anything like shock to the sensitiveness of the public on matters which ought to be concealed from them, ought to be attached to the process by which divorce may be procured in our country. That I believe unquestionably, to any one who gives the matter consideration, will be found to be, by applying to this parliament, not for a Bill of relief, but rather by some quiet and orderly resort to the judges of the land m whose hands we may safely leave the administration of this matter. The statistics of the provinces go to show, that where divorce courts are in operation, they have not been largely availed of. In Nova Scotia the average will be about three cases in a 3 ear, and it is quite possible that several of these cases are not of native Nova Scotians, because it is naturally to be expected that in provinces in which no divorce courts aie existent, persons who desire to procure divorce may migrate there for the timebeing. It seems to me quite probable, that either in * New Brunswick or Nova Scotia it may turn out to be the case, that many of the actions for divorce that have been commenced and concluded there, have been set up by those who really were not citizens of the province. That being the case, it is very evident that the number of divorce actions^ is not encouraged by the fact that courts in which such actions may be taken have been set up in the province, but that this is a remedy which the parliament of Canada may to a certain extent permit without any fear that it is all going to weaken the strength of the marriage bond among the citizens of our country.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S. Fielding). My own views on this question are naturally influenced by the experience of my own province, which has been referred to by my hon. friend from Victoria, N.S. (Mr. Ross), and if it were necessary to come to a decision I would express the hope that the other provinces might adopt the method which is employed in Nova Scotia, with, as I think, success. I think however, that I am correct in stating from the tendency of the discussion here to-dav. that there is no great zeal on the part of members generally to deal with this question. The right hon. Prime Minister suggested, just before six o'clock, that perhaps the hon. member.for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) lad served his purpose for the" lime being by a discussion of the question, and might withdraw his motion. If he is' disposed to do that, my own judgment is Mr. BELL.
that that would be the course most satisfactory to the House. I merely make the suggestion to the hon. gentleman, but I am quite prepared to vote if the division takes place.


John Charlton: Mr. Speaker, of course I did not introduce this motion for the mere purpose of taking the time of the House or leading to an inconsequential result. Still, the discussion of the motion has probably accomplished all that can be reasonably expected at the present time. It is very true, as the right hon. Prime Minister says, that the House at large does not appear to take a deep and active interest in this question. It is a matter which, I presume, will require a good deal of discussion in the country before legislative action can be secured upon it, and one which we ought to approach with due deliberation and some degree of caution. While my own wish, of course, would be to have this motion go to a vote, and have an expression of this House favourable to it, yet I am in the judgment of the House, and if it is the opinion of the House that it would be better under the circumstances to accede to the desire expressed by the leader of the government, as a matter of etiquette, I would feel disposed to do so. If I have the concurrence of the seconder of the motion, and if no objection is made by any member of the House, I am quite willing that the motion, having been discussed in so agreeable, proper and instructive a manner, should be withdrawn.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) As the seconder of the motion, I think the end we have in view has been served to a large extent. We have listened with a good deal of pleasure to the very excellent speeches which have been made by gentlemen on the other side of the House. Those speeches will go to the country, and in this observing age the country will by and by begin to see the necessity of adopting a different method of divorce from that which exists at present in the Dominion of Canada. I know what the law is in Nova Scotia, and I know that there is no publicity given to the evidence. The only thing stated is that the case has been tried and the judgment has been given. When the excellent speeches which have been made on the other side are sent to the country, they will perhaps effect the first change in public opinion on this subject. This is perhaps a small beginning to a great reform, but all reforms in the past commenced with small beginnings, and we must not despise the day of small things, because great things will be the result at some future day.
Motion withdrawn.


GOVERNMENT OFFICE BUILDINGS.
Mr.  T. S.@: SPROULE (East Grey) moved for :

Return showing the number of buildings, or portions of buildings, rented or occupied by the government for offices or other purposes, in Ottawa, outside the departmental buildings; from whom rented, terms of lease or leases, and rent being paid for each.
He said :	My object in making this motion is to ascertain the number of buildings or other apartments rented by the government and used for government purposes, from whom they are rented, the rent that is paid, and the terms of the leases. I do so because of the rumours that have been current for some time, that the government have rented many buildings or portions of buildings which are not suitable for the public requirements, that they are rented from political friends, and that exorbitant rents are being paid. I am told that there is no provision in most of these buildings for protecting valuable papers and other goods belonging to the government, from the danger of fire. I do not know how far these rumours are correct, and I make this motion so that we may get the correct information. If it is true, that we are paying very heavy rents for these buildings, and that it has cost considerable to fit them up for the needs of the government, it seems to me that it would be much better and wiser for the government to buy land and erect buildings suitable for the needs of the country. They could be made fireproof, and we would save a very heavy outlay in rents. After I get this information, if I am correctly informed, I may follow it with another motion later on. Now, I have heard it said by supporters of the government that we cannot get land in Ottawa on which to erect public buildings. Well, the longer it is put off the more difficult it will be to acquire land. It is true, the government might be obliged to pay a pretty good figure for suitable land ; but I imagine that they would pay a smaller figure now than they would be likely to do fifteen or twenty years hence. I have often thought that the time will come when it will be almost compulsory on the government, in order to provide office room, to purchase the piece of land from the Lange-vin block to O'Connor street, and fill it with one large block. It would certainly greatly enhance the appearance of the government grounds, and the buildings surrounding them. There are other places where buildings might be erected, such as Nepean Point and a portion of Major Hill Park. It is for the purpose of drawing attention to this matter and of putting ourselves in the position to be able to determine whether it would be the part of wisdom or otherwise for the government to purchase grounds on which to erect new buildings or whether it would be better that they should continue the present system of renting buildings from outside parties, that I make this motion.


The MINISTER OF PUBRIC WORKS. (Hon. James Sutherland).: I should be very pleased indeed to bring down the return called for by this motion. I agree with the
hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) that it is in the public interest that this House should be possessed of all the information obtainable on the subject. My hon. friend has referred to the splendid site obtainable on Wellington street, and I agree with him that it would be a great improvement and add greatly to the appearance of "the parliamentary grounds and buildings, that we should procure that site. But there are one or two rather serious objections raised. One is the heavy expenditure we would have to incur, owing to the valuable buildings that have been erected there within the past few years, and another and a more serious one is that unless we have the whole block from Wellington to Sparks street we would always be liable to injury from fire communicated from the other blocks and the safety of our valuable records and books would be endangered. There is also a serious objection to our taking Major's Hill Park. I doubt very much if the hon. members of this House would like to see that beautiful park covered with buildings. It is certainly a fine breathing spot for the citizens of Ottawa and visitors and members of the House. Parks are a great necessity in a growing city, besides being a great luxury to the people. However, the suggestion is well worthy of consideration. The hon. gentleman is perfectly right when he says that the time has arrived when this House must seriously consider the erection of departmental buildings so that public business may be carried on more conveniently than it is now. I have not the figures and therefore cannot make a fair estimate at present, but if it be the case, as the hon. gentleman says, that we are paying now in rents and other expenses more than the interest on capital and maintenance would cost us, if we purchased a site and erected new departmental buildings, we certainly should not hesitate doing so. I am not aware that either the previous or the present government has been guilty of paying excessive rents because buildings rented by the government happen to be owned by political friends. I think that the buildings required by some of the departments since this administration has taken office, have been rented from political opponents, and I have no doubt that the best bargain possible was made by the officials of the government. However, it is a very important and serious question, this question of the desirability of procuring property on which to put up better buildings than we now have, and I am satisfied that it is in the interests of the country that these buildings should be erected as soon as possible. This matter has in the short time that I have been in the department, received some attention from myself and my officials. During the past few weeks we have gone into it to a considerable extent in order to ascertain what properties were available and what the buildings would cost. I hope that even during this session we may be able to report some progress so

that lion, members may be in a position to give us the benefit' of their advice as to what, in their opinion, would be the best course to take. I shall have much pleasure in bringing down the papers at the very earliest possible moment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of the Minister of Finance. House adjourned at 9.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, Friday, March 27, 1903.