1903-04-02

FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 75) respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Thompson (Haldimand).
Bill (No. 76) to enable the city of Vancouver to acquire certain lands and interests adjoining Vancouver harbour.-Mr. Mae-pherson.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SMITH (Vancouver) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 77) to promote the safety of employees. He said This Bill is similar to the one I introduced last session. Its object is to compel railway companies to use certain safety appliances, such as automatic couplers.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir F. W. Borden) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 78) to amend the Militia Pension Act. He said:-The object of this Bill is to amend the Pension Act in such a way that members of the civil service who become officers of the permanent force or militia, under the Militia Pension Act. will have their time counted for which they paid into the superannuation fund of the civil service. I may add that this amendment is precisely similar to the provisions of the North-west Mounted Police Pension Act passed last session.
Mr. SPROULE.: Would that not be paying them double ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No.


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


Mr. BELL asked :: 1.	Has a petition been received by the Department of Railways, through the minister or other official, asking that the station at Scotch Hill be made a booking station ?
2.	What action has been taken by the department on the petition, if received ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: It does not appear that any petition has been received asking that Scotch Hill be made a booking station.


INVERNESS AND RICHMOND RAILROAD SUBSIDY.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER -by Mr. Taylor-asked :

1.	What amount has been paid to the Inverness and Richmond Railway Company, Limited, lor subsidy upon the line from Port Hawkes-bury to Broad Cove Mines, up to the present time ?
2.	What amount, if any, is now owing to the said company in respect of such subsidy ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	The sum of $311,375.53 has been paid to the Inverness and Richmond Railway Company, Limited, for subsidy upon the line from Port Hawltesbury to Broad Cove Mines up to the present time.
2.	All the subsidy earned has been paid.



LIVES LOST IN RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.

Mr. CLARKE asked :: X. How many accidents involving loss of human life have taken place on the railways of Canada since the first day of October, 1902 ?
2.	How many human lives were lost in such accidents, or as a result of such accidents ?
3.	Has the government appointed any person, or instructed any of its officials to make a special and rigid inquiry and examination into, and report upon the causes which led to such accidents, including the system by which the traffic of the railways is operated ; the speed the trains were moving when the accidents occurred ; the condition of track and rolling stock ; the hours which the train men, station agents, telegraph operators, and other officials [DOT]f the companies were on duty, m connection with the movement of the trains to which accidents occurred ; the wages paid employees; the sufficiency and qualification of the staff employed on the trains, and at the stations, telegraph offices, &c. ?
4.	If such officer has been appointed, has ho made any report to the government; and if so, is it the intention of the government to lay the report before the House ?
5.	Is it the duty of any public official, and if so, of whom, to inquire into and leport to the government, upon all railway accidents which occur in the Dominion ?
6.	If there is no such official, is it the intention of the government to appoint an officer for such purpose ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: Last session a return was moved for, I think, by the bon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Hag-gart), of the number of accidents which had occurred on the railways during the preceding three years. An effort was made by the department to obtain this information from the various railways, but without complete success, only a partial return being made. We have been promised from time to time that the information would be sent to us. but it has not yet found its way to the department. The question which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) asks is with respect to accidents occurring since the first October last. I have mentioned the point I first stated in order that the House might be aware that we are endeavouring to procure information extending over a very much longer period. I give the answer to the hon. gentleman's questions so far as the reports of the railways to my department
since the first October, 1902 enable me to do so, as follows :
1st. There have been 142 separate and distinct accidents.
2nd. There have been 179 human lives lost in such accidents, of which 38 lost their lives in collisions between trains.
3,	4, 5 and 6. The matter is under consideration, but no action has been taken.



ABOLITION OF TONNAGE DUES ON CANALS.

Thomas Simpson Sproule: In view of the requests of vessel owners and shippers, in the interest of Canadian transportation, is it the intention of the government to abolish the tonnage dues on shipping passing through the canals ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: There is a deputation coming to interview the government on this question. And we deferred consideration of the matter until we have received that deputation.
PROPOSALS FOR TRANSCONTINENTAL LINH. Mr. MONK asked:
1.	Have any definite proposals been made to the government in regard to the building of an additional transcontinental line of railway through Canada ?
2.	Will the government lay these proposal* before parliament previous to accepting any of them or making any final arrangement in regard to assisting in the construction of any such line ?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to make a binding agreement with any company, syndicate, or any person, in regard to the construction of said line, without previously consulting parliament in regard to the same ?
4.	From whom have proposals of the kind referred to above been received ?
5.	What is the date of such proposals ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: It is impossible at present to answer any of the questions the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) has asked. The House has already been informed that communications, largely verbal, have taken place between the government and the parties on this subject. But it would be premature to make any announcement now. As soon as this can be done in the public interest, parliament will be informed fully.



CATTLE-GUARD COMMISSION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LENNOX-by Mr. Leonard-asked :
1.	The Minister of Public Works, having on Monday last stated In the House, In reply to questions, that ' there are a number of cattle-guards yet to be tested; and that George Robertson, Esq., M.P.P., is not now engaged in the work.' How is the Railway Cattle-guard Commission now constituted, and who are the members of the commission ?
2.	When were the services of Mr. Robertson, as commissioner, dispensed with or discontinued, and for what cause ?
3.	Who has been appointed in his place, and when ?
[Stage Direction]
4.	How many cattle-guards, or cattle-guard devices, are there yet to be tested ? Who are the persons who invented, or are producing, or offering them; and when and where are the tests to be made ?
5.	When was the latest test of cattle-guards made ?
6.	Has the Minister of Railways done anything to expedite the termination of the inquiry, and the making of the report ? And if so, what measures, and when were they taken ?
7.	Has the minister taken any means to ascertain when the report will be ready; and if so, what has been done ?
8.	Was any limit of time fixed for the making of the report ? What was the limit ; and has it been extended, and until what date ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1. and 2. Mr. F. W. Holt, C.E., remains the sole commissioner in connection with the cattle-guard tests, Mr. Robertson having withdrawn from the commission on the 14tli of February. The work was then supposed to be practically concluded, and a report prepared, which had been substantially settled upon between the two commissioners, which only remained to be put in form and signed.
Since Mr. Robertson retired, a number of persons have offered and produced cattle-guards which they wish to have tested, and Mr. Holt has been continued in the service, according them that opportunity.
3.	No one has been appointed in Mr. Robertson's place ; it was not deemed necessary to do so.
4.	and 5. There are 61 devices yet to be tested, and the following are the names of the persons who invented, or are producing or offering them :
william Baker, Adolphe Larose,
P. J. Bois,
James Wood,
L.	A. Lacount,
E.	H. Graham,
W. H. Smith,
J. W. Kendall,
The Trackmans,
R. H. Pentecost,
J. E. Cole,
H. F. Service,
James Finn,
W. J. Henry,
W. Porter,
Thos. Logan,	[DOT]
M.	Thibault,
T. Burgess,
The Positive,
M. McMillan,
F.	X. Wade & J. R. Timothy,
A. R. Hansen,


Jno.   J.@: Gartshon,
Wm. Holliday,
W. Cameron,
A. G. Bust,
Jas. Cavanagh,
Major Whitcomb,
D. McKinnon,
Joseph Webber,
W. F. Boardman, Samuel H. G. Jones, Thos. Logan,
R.	C. Russell,
E. C. Smith,
A. Briggs & S.P. Deusen, Jas. McKinder,
Arthur Thom,
Walsh Bros,
Henry LaPlante,
E. Maimy,
E.	B. Reid,
W. Lampman,
H.W.D. Armstrong, C.E. Akers & Tennant,
D. P. Cosy,
Mr. Davis,
F.	McEdwards,
M. C. Wilson,
Gideon Brown,
F. J. Irvine,
Peter Kenan,


Mark J.: McGowan,


Jno.   H.@: Stewart,
?. J. Tucker,
W. G. McLean,
S.	C. WestrQ,
A. Baker,
Marshall, hy Mr. Ross,


Mr. LENNOX.: The tests are being made at the exhibition grounds, Ottawa, every day, and from day to day. The latest is going on to-day, and the tests will be continued until the guards have all been tried.
6. aud 7. Yes ; the minister has given orders to complete the work as rapidly as possible. The report will be ready as soon as the tests are completed-it is practically now ready, except as to these later devices.
8. Yes ; it was thought that the examinations might be made into the cattle-guards in use on the different railways in the United States and Canada, and inquiries made and information obtained, and the report ready in four months at the outside. The necessary and most important part of the inquiry has been concluded wherever cattle-guards were in operation. The time occupied in making the tests was much greater than it was supposed would be required, owing to the interest which people were taking in the subject in various parts of the country, and their desire to meet the commissioners and state their views to them, and a great number of meetings were held, particularly in the province of Ontario, at which the commissioners were present.



CORRESPONDENCE WITH NEW BRUNSWICK AND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: ' Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask when the correspondence with tire law officers of the province of New Brunswick will be laid on the Table 7
The	MINISTER	OF	JUSTICE	(Hon.
Charles Fitzpatrick). I hope to be able to lay it upon the Table this afternoon. I sent it over to my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) a moment ago.


Robert Laird Borden: And how about (lie correspondence	witli Prince Edward-
Island 7
The	MINISTER	OF	JUSTICE.	-The
papers I sent my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) included both so far as we have them.


Robert Laird Borden: Not the papers I received-I examined the file carefully.
The	MINISTER	OF	JUSTICE.	Witli
New Brunswick the discussion was, I think, verbal. I do not think there are any letters. My recollection is that the Attorney General and the Prime Minister of New Brunswick called upon me, and the representations on tlie subject were verbally made. But if there was any correspondence with New Brunswick on the subject, I will produce it to-morrow.



REDISTRIBUTION BILE-SCHEDULES AND MAPS.

Robert Laird Borden: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like also to ask the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) whether or not he is prepared to lay upon the Table of the House, or to submit to us, the schedules that have been prepared for the purposes of the Redistribution Bill. It is currently stated in the press and throughout the House that schedules have been prepared for the purposes of the Bill, the attention of the government having been given to the matter for a long time. I am not at all disposed, at the present moment, to question the fairness of the government in making the proposition which they did the other day with regard to this Bill, but I wish to point out to my right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that to prepare schedules and not hand them to us might result in the end, in very much less fairness to us than if they had been attached to the Bill in the first place. For instance, if my right hon. friend-I am merely suggesting this-has prepared schedules which it is intended to insist upon, there would surely not be much fairness in withholding them until the committee meets, giving us no opportunity to examine them. I am not at all suggesting that that is the course the government intended to pursue, but I am suggesting that, not only in fairness to us, but from the standpoint of making good progress when we do get to the committee, it would be only right that any schedules that have been prepared should be submitted to us in order that we may consider them now. The same is true of- any maps that may have been prepared, because it is alleged that a map of the proposed constitu-ences has been made and is now in the hands of the government. If any map of the constituencies, as proposed by the government has been prepared, it also should be handed to us. I think it is only right that I should bring this matter to the attention of the government at this early date, because I find in the columns of various' well informed journals the assertion that the schedules have been gone into with great care, gone into in detail, and are now fn the condition in which it is proposed to present them to the committee.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I have to say to my hon. friend that I have received some ten. perhaps twenty, different schedules from different parts of the country, asking that the division of certain constituencies should take place on such and such lines. I would be much surprised if my hon. friend had not himself received similar schedules.


Robert Laird Borden: No.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Then he has not been so highly favoured ns I have been,
because I have received any number of them. But I have taken the ground that we would not commit ourselves to any details in advance. We intend to have this Bill fairly gone into and dealt with. Suggestions without number we have received, suggestions have been considered, but the government has not committed itself to anything whatever. We go into the Committee perfectly free handed, and not only so, but desirous of taking every county by itself so far as its division is concerned, and in this work we hope to have the assistance of my hon. friend and his friends. No maps have been prepared either.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course I accept, under the circumstances, the statement of the right hon. gentleman that no schedule has been prepared, and that no work has been done on any schedule to put it into the form in which it is proposed to submit it to the Committee.



CORRESPONDENCE RE ALASKAN BOUNDARY, INTERCOLONIAL CONFERENCE, AND BOND-HAY TREATY.

Robert Laird Borden: There is one other matter that I would like to mention to the hon. gentleman. Some weeks ago, shortly after the debate on the address, I drew the attention of the right lion, gentleman to the fact that the papers respecting the Alaskan boundary had not yet been brought down. I understood at that time that the fault was not on this side of the Atlantic but with the British government. I also referred to the papers respecting the colonial conference, and pointed out that no papers whatever with regard to that had been laid upon the Table of the House; and that members on this side were absolutely destitute of any information except such as they could obtain from documents laid before the imperial parliament. I also referred to the papers respecting the Bond-Hay treaty. I would like to know if the hon. gentleman can give us any information on the subject.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: With regard to the papers concerning the Alaskan boundary, I can assure my hon. friend that I am just as anxious as himself to bring them down. There are some despatches which are necessary to make other papers intelligible, which are secret despatches. We cannot publish them, unless we have the authority of the Colonial office. We have asked for this authority more than ten days ago, and have not received an answer yet. But I intend to press again for the authority, and if we cannot get it within, say, the next month, we will have 1o bring down what papers it is permissible to bring, and leave the others to be brought down later on.

With regard to the Bond-Hay treaty, all the papers are now ready, and I think that I shall be ready to lay them on the Table not later than Monday. There is also in this treaty one secret despatch as to which we should have to ask the consent of the Colonial office. I see no difficulty at all In getting it. With regard to the papers concerning the conference, we have no other report than that which has been published by the imperial authorities. Perhaps it would be advisable to have this report brought before parliament and printed, and if that is acceptable to my hon. friend, we shall do so immediately.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought possibly that this government, having sent representatives to the conference, would have some report of its own, some information of its own to bring to the House, in addition to that which lias been made public in the mother country and the various colonies.



THE POSTMASTER GENERAL'S REPORT.

Mr. BELL.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask when the Postmaster General's report will be laid upon the Table.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir Wm. Mulock).: It was laid on the Table some time ago.


John William Bell: How is it, then, that it is not distributed ? There are no copies in the post office available for members.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I presume it will be found in the distribution office. It is not the practice to put them in the post office boxes. Has the hon. gentleman applied to the clerk of the distribution office ?


John William Bell: No.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That would be the proper place, I think, to apply.


John William Bell: I thought it was the practice to put copies of all the reports in the post office.


The TOSTMASTER GENERAL.: The clerk of the distribution office is an officer of this House, and if he has not complied with the usual practice, I suppose when his attention is called to it by the chairman of the Committee on Internal Economy, he will attend to it. Perhaps my hon. friend has not looked in the box.


John William Bell: Yes, I have made application at the post office, and was not able to get any copies there; for that reason I have called the attention of the hon. gentleman to this matter.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The clerk of the distribution office is not under Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
my control, he is under the control of this House.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I am under the impression that the report was distributed before the session. Perhaps that is the reason why it cannot be found in the boxes.



AUTOMATIC GRAIN-WEIGHERS IN THE NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed consideration of the following proposed motion for :
Return showing all correspondence between the Inland Revenue Department and manufacturers of automatic grain-weighers, used on threshing machines, in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. Between the Inland Revenue Department and inventors of automatic grain-weighers for threshing machines. Between the Inland Revenue Department and thresher men using automatic grain-weighers, in Manitoba and the North-west Territories. Also, copy of report of chief inspector and scale architect re tu ®*-anciard grain-weigher, manufactured by the Globe Manufacturing Company, of Winni-peg.-Mr. Stewart.
Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia).: I regret that when the House was discussing this matter yesterday, the hour for recess arrived, and cut off the debate. A couple of minutes would have sufficed me to say all I wished to say in support of the contention of my hon. friend from Lis-gar (Mr. Stewart). I regret also that the facts of the matter are such as compel me to endorse the remarks that were made by the hon. gentleman from Lisgar (Mr. Stewart) and the future remarks made even more vehemently by my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd). The question is one of considerable importance to the grain growing sections between Lake Superior and the Rocky Mountains. The fact is becoming emphasized in various ways that Canada is a large country. Western Canada itself is a large country, and the wheat growing industry of western Canada has become a very important enterprise. The grain products west of Lake Superior now exceed annually one hundred million bushels. This fact in itself is the testimony that the industry has become a very important one. The industry of threshing out these large crops of grain is also a very important one, and it is found that the method which has been employed in times past, the method of weighing or measuring the threshed grain has become obsolete and impossible. In Manitoba and the North-west Territories, the conditions have led to the invention of an automatic weighing device which to-day is a necessity, and although the device is not a legalized instrument for weighing or measuring, the threshers and farmers in that country are compelled to use it. The fact that this device has not been legalized, and the further fact that it has been necessary to use it for some years, have led to a considerable

amount of litigation both in Manitoba and the North-west Territories. Cases have been taken in Manitoba by the threshers to collect accounts against farmers for threshing, and the decisions have been given to the effect that where this automatic weighing device has been used the threshers cannot legally collect their accounts. In reality all the threshers of that country are now dependent for their pay upon the honour and good faith of the individual farmer.
Cases have also been taken in the Northwest Territories and the decision of one trial judge was similar to the Manitoba decision. But, last fall, I may say, the Attorney General's Department of the North-west Territories took up one of the cases and obtained a decision from the appeal court to the effect that if the grain was measured in a bin where the bin was so constructed that the cubic measurement could be obtained, the thresher could legally collect his bill from the farmer. Still that is only in a few cases practicable, so that in the North-west Territories and Manitoba, the automatic weighing device not being legalized, the threshers is at the mercy of the individual farmer for the collection of his account. As was stated yesterday afternoon, the representatives from Manitoba and the North-west Territories were, a year ago. invited to go over to the Inland Revenue Department to witness tests being made of this automatic weighing device, and I, with others from the west, was over on two or three occasions. The device was very thoroughly tested over there and tested to the satisfaction of all of us and we understood that it met with the satisfaction too of the officers of the Inland Revenue Department. Up to the present time the sanction of the department has not been given to the adoption of this automatic weigher. In asking that the department give legal sanction to the weigher, we are not asking anything which will endanger or harm any interest or any persons. The machine is satisfactory to the thresher and it is satisfactory to the farmer. It is approximately, and I believe absolutely, accurate. Farmers have told me that the results in the elevator, where there is a legalized weighing scale, tally aproximately accurately with the results given by the automatic weigher. I simply wish to join the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) in urging the matter upon the attention of the House and particularly on the attention of the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue.
hon. gentlemen representing constituencies in Manitoba and the North-west Territories to confer with me on matters relating to the weighing of grain. In June last, as the correspondence will show, one of the officers of the department, Mr. Magness, of Winnipeg, inspector of weights and measures, wrote to the department, stating that he thought he had invented a machine which would be satisfactory to both the owners of threshing machines and to the farmers and that he thought this machine should be admitted to verification. I ordered immediately that Mr. Magness should come down to Ottawa, bringing with him the machine which he lmd invented. The machine was tested and I must say that after the trial one of the officers of the department, who had no special authority either to examine or verify, wrote a certain letter which will be brought down with the other documents. Later on, in order not to put farmers and owners of threshing machines to the necessity of engaging in new litigation, we brought here an expert, and I must say to my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) that I think he is a little in error when he says that the gentleman who was then brought here as an expert and later on appointed as chief inspector of weights and measures; was half a blacksmith and half a scale manufacturer. Mr. Fyfe is well known throughout the Dominion as one ofl the best qualified men that we could find. Hff was strongly recommended not only by the scale manufacturers in the Dominion, but by many other people who had had the advantage of ascertaining his qualifications. I may say that in many instances I am told that large corporations, such as the Grand Trunk Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway companies, have invited Mr. Fyfe to act as their expert. After having examined the weighing machine in the presence of Mr. Magness he said that the machine was not in compliance with the law, and at that time Mr. Magness seemed to admit that it was true. I wish to state here that my hou. friend is again in error when he says that it was very easy for the department to change the law and admit to verification that weighing machine. I know he is not a lawyer, but he might have asked some lawyer, who might have told him that it was impossible for the department to change the law by Order in Council. That section was read and properly interpreted yesterday by my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche).


Mr. BOYD.: Have you not verified special weighing machines in the department ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier).: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I must say that I have no objection to bringing before the House all the correspondence and papers in any way relating to the facts as submitted in the motion of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr Stewart). Last year I invited to the department some


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes, I will answer my hon. friend in a moment or two. I have not now, what I expect to have, three or four cases in which, for certain purposes, weighing machines were admitted to verification because they were in conformity with the law. That is my information, but I will be in a position in a

few minutes, or later on, to give instances and show cases as they actually are. When that question was brought before the House last year I stated that Mr. Magness would be in a position later on to supply the market with a good weighing machine complying ill every respect with the law. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyd) cannot expect that the head of the department or any officer .of the department could of their own knowledge decide whether a machine should be admitted to verification or not. As to that we have to accept the decision of the chief inspector and I am glad to say that he has always spoken with authority. I have no doubt that my hon. friend (Mr. Boyd) and my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) have faithfully represented the views of the farmers of the North-west and of Manitoba, and I believe myself that the difficulties of litigation with regard to the threshing of grain must be remedied as soon as possible. But I ask my hon. friend, if the position of the owners of the threshing machines and the farmers would be any better even if we had admitted to verification a machine which did not comply with the law. Had we done that, it would have increased the litigation because any body who had anything to do with a contract might go before the court and say to the owner of that thrashing machine :	I will not pay
because that machine is not in conformity with the law. Neither would the certificate be sufficient in such a ease, because X know of one or! two instances in which decisions have been rendered in the courts of the province of Quebec where the certificate was held not to be sufficient. The department has not been negligent in trying to secure a machine which would give satisfaction and at the same time put a stop to litigation. I understood my hon. friend (Mr. Boyd), to say yesterday, that the farmers and the owners of these machines had to use certain vessels pending the advent of a machine which would give satisfaction, but if they had been provided with a machine which did not comply with the law I imagine that the difficulties would have been the same. If the weighing machine was not a legal one, even though it had been approved and a certificate given, another litigation would have followed. I will not touch for the present at least on the political part of the speech of my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd). I am ready and the department is ready to give to the farmers of the North-west a machine which will be satisfactory, but hon. gentlemen will hardly contend that the department is bound to invent a machine. That must be left to the ingenuity of the individual, and at least credit must be given to the department for having in its service, Mr. Magness who has done his best to meet the wants of the people of the North-west. When Mr. Magness was here, and after he had Hon. Mr. BERNIER.
talked with Mr. Fife, he made up his mind to make some changes which had been suggested to him by Mr. Fyfe. X presume that this has been done, and if my information is correct, a machine will be supplied to the farmers of Manitoba and the North-west for next season. Inquiries have been made by the department in several countries where such machines are in vogue, and if it is found impossible to get a machine which will comply with the terms of the law, then with the assent of my friends on both sides of the House, I will bring in a measure in order to relieve the just grievances of these people.
Mr. It. I,. BOItDEN (Halifax). I would like to ask the hon. minister :	How long
lie has been looking for that machine, and liow long he has regarded these grievances as just ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Since last year; before last session.


Robert Laird Borden: Before last session ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Before last session. I think the matter was brought before me about a year ago or perhaps more. I do not know what happened during the time of my predecessor.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. minister ought be able to give us some information as to what happened in the time of his predecessor, because as far as public business is concerned, of course lie realizes, that it does not all date from the commencement of his regime. The difficulty seems to be that at present the people engaged in threshing cannot carry on their business in a.effective manner without violating the law aiid that, according to the minister's statement, has continued for more than a year. The hon. gentleman has not been able to tell us how much longer than a year it has continued because lie only dates his information from the date when he assumed control of the department. Does the hon. minister really think that it is the people of Manitoba and the North-west Territories should be obliged, in order to carry on their business effectively, to violate the law ? Does he think that a year or more is a. reasonable time to allow that condition to continue. I am inclined to think that some greater activity than has been manifested by the hon. gentleman in the past should be manifested in the future; that he should bestir himself a little more about this matter and bring the existing condition of things to a very speedy conclusion. It is greatly to be regretted that the condition should have ever been created at all. but having once been created it is certainly most desirable that every means should be taken to bring it to a conclusion as soon as possible.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 1 would advise tlie lion, gentleman to apply to the Ontario government for a machine, only for the fact that their machines also violate the law.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I may explain that, to my knowledge, and according to the correspondence which I have in hand, there were verbal explanations. The correspondence began in June of last year. I do not want to be accused of negligence, and I hope the gentlemen from the province of; Manitoba have confidence enough in the ability of Mr. Magness, so that they may use this machine. If Mr. Magness, or the Globe Manufacturing Company, which I understand has taken up his interest, is not in a position to supply a machine which will pass inspection, then I will ask parliament to pass a law which will enable us to verify these machines.


Robert Laird Borden: I would not wish to accuse my hon. friend of too much negligence, but I would use the expression which he applied to my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd), and say that he is a little negligent, that is all. As to the details of the matter, I do not know much about them, but I understood from his statement that this condition of affairs had existed for about a year.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk) moved second reading of Bill (No. 3) to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1900. Pie said : Mr. Speaker, in moving the second reading of this Bill, I may perhaps be permitted to make a few observations bearing upon what I conceive to be the necessity for some enlarged scope of the Elections Act as regards offences, and increased stringency ns regards punishments. The necessity for preserving the purity of the electorate lies at the very foundation of the maintenance of the perpetuity of free institutions. A pure, patriotic electorate will ensure to a country the continuance of free institutions and good government. A celebrated American poet has said :
The crowning fact, the kingliest act Of freedom is a free man's vote.
He does not refer to the man that keeps that article for sale; he does not refer to the venal vote, the purchasable vote; but he refers to the vote of the man who esteems his franchise a priceless heritage, and will exercise it according to his convictions and beliefs relating to public policy and the conduct of public affairs.
The necessity for the maintenance of this condition of things is one the importance
of which we cannot overestimate. In this country there are being laid the foundations of a nation-a nation which may hope to attain great prominence in the affairs of the world in the future; a nation which may hope to have an enormous population, great resources, great wealth, and a first-class influence among the nations of the world. But our hopes as to the future can hardly be realized if we permit the virus of corruption to infect the blood of the people. If we permit this, we shall simply have entailed upon us the consequences that have invariably followed political corruption and the debasing of the electorate.
The expression is frequently used; we are devoted to measures, not men. But measures cannot be carried into operation without men. We must have men who are the incarnation of good government and good measures in order to carry these measures into effect; and we can hardly have that class of men under a condition of things where the vote of a country is purchasable. If an electorate is for sale, if it is a question of the amount of money expended as to who shall be elected as its representative, then the very foundations of the stability of our institutions are swept away. The man who so far forgets his duty as a citizen as to purchase his election by a lavish expenditure of money, is a man who is likely to take measures to recoup himself for the expense which he has incurred; and the electorate which has chosen such it man ns its representative has no right to expect any other line of conduct.
Our future depends, I have said, on the purity of the electorate; and if the system of corrupting the electorate cannot be stamped out, of course the evil will grow rapidly in magnitude. If the lavish expenditure' of money is to be a necessary feature of running an electoral contest, then it becomes a matter of primary importance to political parties to provide funds for election purposes, and there is an inevitable tendency to corrupt practices on the part of the government in power. We had an instance of this in 1872, when the government in power felt the necessity of securing a large sum of money for the approaching election contests of that year; and the method adopted by that government, the sale of a great public charter, was one of a most demoralizing character, which became a permanent blot on the history of this country. The influences which led to that violation of the proper rules of public conduct will be at work now and at all times in the future if we have a purchasable electorate and are unable to stamp out this evil; and these influences will naturally lead to actions on the part of governments that cannot be condoned or excused-the scaling of subsidies, rake-offs, methods which politicians do not need to be instructed in or to have alluded to: there will be a powerful incentive that will lead governments to resort to these means to ob-
[Stage Direction]
tain money. In order to secure purity of administration, we must have purity in the electorate; and in order to have purity in the electorate, we must adopt means absolutely to stamp out the influences and the evils that are growing in magnitude in this country day by day.
As to the extent of electoral corruption, I do not know how great it may be. As to whether it is a crime to increase this extent of electoral corruption, I have no doubt whatever. It is a crime of the first magnitude, and a crime that we ought to adopt methods, so far as we possibly can, to avoid. As to the extent of electoral corruption, I say I do not know how great it may be. I suppose I need not attempt to instruct any member of this House with regard to that matter. I dare say we are all well aware that it is an evil of considerable extent, if not of great extent, in this Dominion. I presume we are all aware that very many ridings are influenced in the elections by the corrupt expenditure of money-that there are ridings where the result of the election is merely a matter of how much money is spent, and which party will spend the most. There are ridings which ought to be disfranchised owing to the thorough, absolute corruption of the electorate. As to which of our political parties is the worst, naturally the Conservatives will say that the bulk of this work is done by the other side and naturally the Reformers will take the opposite view ; but I think it will be found that one is just as bad as the other. Each one spends all the money it can. Instead of vieing with each other in these corrupt practices, we had better vie in the attempt to put them down. If we study the question over we can find the means of doing so and thus confer untold blessings upon the country. At present the candidate who prosecutes his canvass on proper lines, who avoids the improper expenditure of money, is, in nine cases out of ten, heavily handicapped. He is clogged in the race and many a man who would refrain from this kind of work, is compelled to do it in order to meet similar influences which are working against him. Elections can scarcely be run under present conditions without the expenditure of money. What should be the object of our law governing elections ? Its primary object should be to put an end to these practices by adopting measures that cannot fail to do so. We should not hesitate to apply drastic remedies. We should increase the number of offences and the severity of sentences and punishments, and if we do so to a sufficient extent I believe we will succeed in stamping out the practices. So far as electoral corruption is concerned, I am informed that in most of the states of the American union it has been absolutely stamped out. That has been the case in the states of New York and Pennsylvania. Three weeks ago there was a trial in the city of Buffalo concerning the
Mr. CHARLTON.: election of a sheriff. The sheriff was charged with having promised an office and some emoluments to a friend for his assistance in the election. He was liable, on conviction, to be sentenced to five years in the penitentiary, but escaped on a verdict of ' not proven.' The law of that state is now in such shape that it is perilous to indulge in any of these illicit practices. The man who pays a bribe puts himself at the mercy of the seallawag who takes the money. This is so perilous that the practice has ceased. I believe that we can reach the same result here. The present law does not go far enough, and I propose some amendments which will have the effect of giving it the requisite extension. Perhaps tile promoters of that law intended it to go as far as necessary. But it has not put an end to corruption. On the contrary, corruption is spreading rapidly and the influence of this condition of things shows itself in other lines of public life. The best elements of the country are alarmed. Men of all parties deplore this condition of things and ask whether there is not some remedy. Can we not put an end to this evil which threatens the well-being and stability of our state. The amendment I am about to submit creates in the first place a few more offences. In that respect the original Act is not ns comprehensive as it should be. It also increases the penalties to such an extent that infractions of the law, if the accused be convicted, involve not only a loss of money but loss of liberty. These are penalties which will make crime odious and cause every man to shrink from the consequences.
Without further general remarks let me call the attention of the House to the provisions of this Bill. Section 108, law 1900, relating to Dominion elections gives a number of offences in detail, as set out in subsection ' A ' to ' I.' I propose to add three more subsections, ' J,' ' K ' and ' L.' Subsection ' J ' is as follows :-
(j.) Every person who by abduction, duress or any forcible or fraudulent device or contrivance, impedes, prevents or otherwise interferes with the free exercise of the elective franchise by any voter, or compels, induces, or prevails upon any voter to give or refrain from giving his vote for or against any candidate at any election ;
Subsection ' IC ' is as follows :-
(k.) Every person who, being an employer, pays his employees the wages or salary due, in pay envelopes, upon which there is written or printed any political motto, device or argument containing threats, express or implied, intended or calculated to influence the political opinions or actions of such employees, or within ninety days of a general election puts or otherwise exhibits in the establishment or place where his employees are engaged in labour, any handbill or placard containing any threat, notice or information, that if any particular ticket or candidate is elected or defeated, work in his place or establishment will cease in whole or

in part, his establishment will be closed up, or the wages of his employees will be reduced, or other threats, express or implied, intended or calculated to influence the political opinions or actions of his employees ;
The following is subsection ' L ':-
(1.) Every person who, being an officer or employee of Canada or of any province thereof, directly or indirectly uses his authority or official influence to compel or induce any other such officer or employee to pay or promise to pay any political assessment, or-
(2.) Being an officer or employee of Canada or any province thereof, directly or indirectly gives, pays or hands over to any officer such officer or employee, any money or other valuable thing on account of, or to be applied to, the promotion of his election, appointment or retention in office, or makes any promise or gives any subscription to such officer or employee to pay or contribute any money or other valuable thing for such purpose or object,-or
(3.) Prepares or makes out or takes any part in preparing or making out any political assessment, subscription or contribution, or sends or presents any political assessment, subscription or contribution to, or requests its payment of, any such officer or employee;
These are the three subsections which I propose to add to section 108 of tlie law of 1900, and I propose to change the character of the punishment as follows :-
And every person so offending

that is, committing any of the offences in this alphabetical list from ' A ' to ' L '-

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, and shall forfeit a sum not exceeding five hundred dollars to any person who sues therefor, with costs, and shall be disfranchised for a period of seven years, or, in case the offence is committed by a corporation, it shall forfeit its charter.
Provided always, that the actual personal expenses of any candidate, his expenses for actual professional services performed, and bona fide payments for the fair cost of printing, advertising, bill posting and rent of halls or rooms for meetings, shall be held to be expenses lawfully incurred, and the payment thereof shall not be a violation of this Act.
The following section I have copied from the Penal Code of the State of New York, and upon it I would rely more than upon any other provision of the Bill for putting an end to the evils I am speaking of. This would be substituted for sections 134, 135, and 136. It would be a section general in its character, more comprehensive, more easily understood, terser and more epi-gramatical. It is to be inserted after section 108, and would be numbered 108a :
A person offending against any provision of the next preceding section of this Act

-that is, against any of subsections ' A ' to ' Ij ' of section 108-
-is a competent witness against another person so offending, and may be compelled to attend and testify on any trial, hearing, proceeding, or investigation in the same manner as any other person. The testimony so given shall not be used in any prosecution or proceeding civil or criminal against the person testifying. A person testifying shall not therefor be liable to indictment, prosecution or punishment for the offence with reference to which his testimony was given, and may plead or prove the giving of testimony accordingly, in bar of such indictment or prosecution.
Now, under this section, the man who is bribed may bring an action against the briber, and the penalty is $500, or less at the discretion of the court, payable to the complainant, and any number of men who have been bribed may be subpoenaed as witness and may give their testimony under the provision of this Act which exonerates them from all consequences, civil or criminal in relation to this matter. It is found that, in the state of New York, under the provisions of this Act, the business of bribing men to vote-a business which is carried on with a certain degree of impunity under our laws-is one in which the consequences are so grave, the Act so perilous, the briber being so completely at the mercy of the parties who take his bribe, that parties conclude not to go into it. So the money is not forthcoming and the agents are not there to distribute it. In fact, the business cannot be carried on with safety, and there is an end to the whole thing. We have to adopt something of this kind if we are to cope with this evil in Canada. And if this section 108a is put in our law, it will absolutely put a quietus on the whole business of buying electors at the polls. The fine going to the informant, it will be an inducement to him to bring the briber to book. The briber will be so completely at the mercy of the bribed that there will be an end of the whole business.
4.	Section number 126 of the said Act is repealed, and the following is substituted therefor :-
126. Any person who, while a candidate for the House of Commons either before or after nomination day, is guilty of bribery, fraud, or wilful violation of any election law, shall be for ever disqualified from holding an office of trust or profit under the government of Canada, and shall be disfranchised for the period of seven years next after his being so found guilty.
This is copied from the Penal Code of the state of Pennsylvania, and renders any candidate who is guilty of bribery or fraud ineligible for office for life.
5.	Section 142 of the said Act is amended by substituting the words ' seven years ' for the words ' one year ' in the fifth line thereof.
The provisions of this Act will necessarily require consideration and argument in Committee. I shall not detain the House longer with arguments on the Bill the general feature of which I have attempted to put before the House. I beg to move the second reading of this Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
Mr. M. K. COWAN (South Essex).: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking up the time of the House discussing questions of political morality, but it does seem to me that the lecture which we have just received comes with very bad grace from the lips of an hon. gentleman who invaded the riding of South Ontario to call upon the Conservatives great and Conservatives small to rally round the standard of that self-convicted criminal, Mr. Billy Smith, after he had made the scandalous revelations in the witness box which he did make.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to say in answer to the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) that he makes a statement he is not warranted in making. Mr. William Smith never was a convicted criminal.


Mahlon K. Cowan: A self-confessed criminal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Let me say that Mr. Smith was a respectable member of the community when I went to his convention.


Mahlon K. Cowan: And asked them to nominate him.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe).: Mr. Speaker, as a personal friend of Mr. Wm. Smith, I would not be doing my duty were I not to resent publicly, and in the most emphatic way I can, what has been said here to-day by the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan). I can tell the hon. member for South Essex, say what he will about Mr. Smith, that Mr. Smith stands to-day in the hearts of the people of South Ontario, irrespective of politics, as an honest and truthful man, at all events. Now, what was the position ? There was a keen contest being waged in the riding of South Ontario, on the Conservative side by Mr. Charles Calder, and on the Liberal side by Mr. John Dry-den. I am not going to say here what has prevailed in elections in South Ontario, as conducted by Mr. John Dryden ; the courts prove that, they prove it distinctly and they prove beyond contradiction that Mr. John Dryden has never dared to face a court in Ontario or a judicial decision, because, when brought to bay, he has thrown up the sponge and confessed bribery wholesale throughout the whole riding. What was the position of Mr. Smith ? Mr. Smith, knowing that there was only one way of fighting fire, and that is with fire, on his own behalf, and with other independent men in the riding, irrespective of Mr. Caider, went to work to fight Mr. Dryden in South Ontario in the then ensuing elections. What was the result ? A fund was subscribed, and that fund is placed in Mr. Smith's hands. When Mr. Smith went upon the witness stand, with the fear of God on the one side, he told the truth of it, and what was the answer afterwards ? What was the answer,
I ask the hon. member for South Essex ? Mr. Smith was a candidate in that riding during the last election, and he polled within seventy votes of the number polled by the hon. member (Mr. Ross, Ontario) who represents that riding, and when it is considered that Mr. Smith has always had narrow majorities in South Ontario, when it is considered that on that occasion a dead set was made against him in the riding, that the force of the McLaughlin Carriage Company, which in former elections had been almost passive in Oshawa, was on that occasion thrown against him, it is no matter of wonderment that Mr. Smith was defeated. In prior elections, owing to the fact that the McLaughlin Carriage Company had given a quiet support indirectly to Mr. Smith ; at least, it had not interfered against Mr. Smith, he was elected by narrow majorities, but owing to the fact that this Liberal government had protected the McLaughlin Bros, to a greater extent than ever before,


Mahlon K. Cowan: McLaughlin Bros., with the men they command in the riding and with the other forces they control, went against Mr. Smith in the campaign, and the result was that Mr. Smith lost the election. I am not going to say that there were any improper means taken on behalf of the hon. member who represents that riding, but I believe that hon. gentleman will say that as far as Mr. Smith and his friends are concerned in the last campaign no improper or illegal means were resorted to on his behalf. Here was the position : Mr. Smith had made this honest confession under oath that there was a fund. Mr. Dryden had gone into the witness box and with sanctimonious mien had made out that he knew nothing of the means resorted to to secure his election against Mr. Calder on that occasion. Who were the men who brought about the election of Mr. Dryden ? Why, Sir, there was not a party hack from one end of the province to the other that was not in the riding. The Sullivan gang, who stand to-day hitched up with the Provincial Secretary, were on every highway and side line in South Ontario. I can recall the names of dozens of men brought into the riding, and here was Mr. Smith and the local workers putting up their hard earned money and fighting against this gang brought in there from outside. I have known Mr. Smith since I first came to this House eleven or twelve years ago ; I have known Mr. Smith as prominent in stockraising in Ontario, and let me tell hon. gentlemen in this House that, in the business in which he is concerned, as a stock importer, Mr. Smith occupies one of the most prominent positions in this province, and any man who knows Mr. Smith knows that he is a man of sterling worth, a man of great honesty and one, who, when it came to a question of political preferment or of telling the truth, sank political preferment in preference to telling what was untrue. Mr. Smith is the darling idol of the Conservatives of South Ontario. Why should he not be ? He is a gallant and courageous fighter when up against odds, and after the fight, when it came to a question of truthfulness and honour, he was prepared to tell the truth even to the great hurt of himself and of his friends. Once again I resent the imputation cast upon Mr. Smith, and I beg to say that Liberals as well as Conservatives in their heart of hearts have more respect for Mr. Smith than for John Dryden in the riding of South Ontario.


Mr. A. B. INGRAM (East Elgin).: I am very glad that the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) has brought the matter before this House. I know it has been heralded broadcast throughout the country that Mr. Smith is a criminal. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Cowan) being a lawyer, I would like to have his assistance in getting the administration of justice to straighten out this tangle. The administration of justice

throughout Canada is controlled by the Liberal government from Ottawa, and the Liberal government in Ontario have control of the administration of justice in that province. Now, if William Smith is a criminal, how can the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cowan) charge the Conservative party of Canada with negligence of duty in not prosecuting that criminal ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: Does the hon. gentleman want an answer now ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I will take my seat if you wish to speak.


Mahlon K. Cowan: The reason why is expressed in the following statement of Judge Ferguson
I have some regret that this large offender Mr. Smith is not before us. X have nothing to say of him but that his evidence is the most glaring piece of corruption that I have ever heard.
The reason Mr. Smith was not before them was because they could not get him before them, however anxious they might be on account of the statute of limitations standing in the way.


Andrew B. Ingram: Do I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cowan) to say that Wm. Smith left the province in order to evade justice ? Mr. Smith resides in South Ontario and he has resided there ever since continually, and he gave this evidence himself.


Mahlon K. Cowan: The court did not believe him.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand tiiat the court believed him and condemned him on his own evidence.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Will my hon. friend pardon me.
Some hon. MUMBERS. Order. Don't interrupt.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I know that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) wants to be fair even if some gentlemen on the other side do not. This is the statement of Judge Osier :
I should not call Mr. Smith's^manner candid. He showed a disposition to "fence with the counsel. I should call it brazen, that is the word. I look upon the evidence cf Smith as being a brazen, distinct, strong denial ; a denial that I do not believe.


Andrew B. Ingram: I rose with the intention of being fair and I hope to have the hearing of at least gentlemen in this House who desire to he fair. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cowan) will carefully read the evidence in the South Ontario case he will find that Mr. Smith admitted having expending something like $1,200 during that election.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Certainly.


Andrew B. Ingram: That he collected a fund for that purpose and expended it.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Not collected ; but he said he spent it.


Andrew B. Ingram: He admitted in court that he handled the fund, and that was the evidence. Now, if Mr. Smith has done wrong and is a criminal, why is it I ask that the Department of Justice has not prosecuted him ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: At the time the prosecution took place there had been no charge made against Wm. Smith, because the evidence was not brought out until the trial. They did not have him before them, and the statute of limitations then steps in


Andrew B. Ingram: Did not the judges have the power to imprison him ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: I leave it to my hon. friend and the lawyers on this side of the House to settle that. But this much I do know, and it is that the Department of Justice has been lax in prosecuting offenders under the Election law. It does not lie in the mouth of any person to charge the Conservatives with not prosecuting that class of criminal. Let me say that Mr. Smith lias been a highly respected member of this House. He had as good a record as perhaps any other member in this House during the time he was here, and more than that, I will say that Wm. Smith is not the only person in this country who could give evidence of that kind if they chose to be honest. It is notorious that those who administer justice in the province of Ontario have little to their credit for the manner in which they have administered the law against electoral corruption. * In the county of Elgin to my knowledge, they have allowed criminals time and again to leave that county and go unwhipt of justice.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to ask a question.


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I do not desire to bring out these post mortems, but the hon. gentleman must know that in the West Elgin case, when the warrant was issued against Pritchett, that warrant was got out of the possession of the constable, so Pritchett stated, by one of the hon. members now representing the city of Hamilton, and by Mr. O. E. Fleming, of Windsor, and that it was impossible for them to issue a second warrant upon that information and therefore the absence of a warrant allowed the fugitive to escape.


Andrew B. Ingram: Mr. Pritchett resided in the city of London and the Liberal government dare not prosecute him. He had nothing to fear from the Liberal party. They dare not prosecute him. What else could he. do but make his peace with the



Conservative party in order to come back to this country. He liad no fear of the Liberal party at all. The hon. member for Hamilton is here to speak for himself. We know perfectly well that this Pritchett was iii South Ontario and that Thomas Lewis was there to, and to-day Lewis administers the license law-3 of the province of Ontario in the department of Mr. Stratton.


Mr. SAMUEL BARKER (Hamilton).: I did not catch exactly the expression used by the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan), but I understand he quotes somebody as saying, that the member for Hamilton on some occasion got a warrant against the man Pritchett out of some one's possession and so prevented his prosecution. I do not know who said that, but it is an absolute falsehood.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Barker: And any man who says it or pretends to assert that it is a fact, tells an absolute falsehood, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. COWAN I know that Pritchett swore to it on his oath and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) has not so far as I know ever denied it before.


Robert Laird Borden: It is somewhat unusual I think to make an attack of this character upon a gentleman who is not in the House, for the purpose of attempting to discredit an hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) who made a speech which certainly was not of a partisan character. However, I have heard my hon. friend from South Essex (Mr. Cowan) pursue tactics of that kind before and I cannot say that X was very much surprised at it to-day. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cowan) would look around, possibly he might find in the ranks of the Liberal party to-day gentlemen who had experienced the result of a trial in the election court. I do not propose to follow his methods and to make references that I could make if I desired to pursue the tactics of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cowan). I would just suggest to him that possibly in the future some of his own friends would thank him, if he did not introduce matters of this kind; otherwise some references which might not be very pleasant will perhaps be made. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) has enunciated his views in regard to matters of this kind. Some eleven years ago he spoke with reference to these things, and I happen to have in my hand the expression of that right hon. gentleman's views with regard to one constituency in Canada. He said :
He knew there was a large number of men in the country who wanted to be bought. He knew that because he had bought them twice when he was an unrepentant sinner.


Andrew B. Ingram: I commend that expression of opinion to my hon. friend from South Essex (Mr. Cowan).
I will also ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to thank the member for South Essex for another quotation which I shall make. The right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. , Sir Richard Cartwright) said, this in the House of Commons :
I am speaking a most lamentable, but at the same time a most certain truth when I say that as regards the 215 constituencies of this Dominion with the exception of a very small percentage, the balance of power under our system is practically placed in the hands of the most corrupt section of the community. I make this statement advisedly as I make it with very great regret, but it is so and to all intents and purposes the only practical difficulty which stands in the way of the party possessing the reins of power, and having at their disposal sufficient sums of money, is simply the difficulty of bringing these corrupt means into direct anl actual contact with the great masses of the electors. Were that mechanical difficulty, as I might almost call it, overcome then I have no doubt whatever that the opposition in this country would be practically exterminated at any general election that might take place.
We have seen some of the efforts that have been made within the last few years to overcome this mechanical difficulty. We have seen gangs of men, outsiders, hired for the purpose, going into many constituencies for the purpose of overcoming the mechanical difficulty referred to by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. No one who has weighed the evidence can have any doubt that the Hon. Peter White was elected at the by-election at Brockville, and there is equally little doubt that the Conservative candidate was elected at the by election in West Huron. Both of these elections were stolen, and the government accepted the stolen goods ; and after the election courts revealed certain facts, the government, or the followers of the government at least, used every effort in their power to prevent an investigation notwithstanding certain promises which were made in this House ; and when the motion to continue the investigation was made in this House at the following session, it was voted down, and there has been no investigation since, and Mr. Pritchett, the man who worked these elections, has not been prosecuted. After leaving the country, he came back and openly stated that he knew he would not be prosecuted, because the Liberal government dare not prosecute him, and he has continued to remain here, and the government not dared to prosecute him. I did not intend to bring these matters before the House at the present time ; but when we see such tactics as those adopted by the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) to-day. hon. gentlemen opposite will not take it amiss, I suppose. If I call to their attention certain matters-and the list is by no means exhausted-which have somewhat affected their status in days gone by.

So far as the merits of the Bill are concerned, I would not like to commit myself at present to every word or line of it; hut certainly it is one which should go to a second reading and which should result in useful legislation. There is no doubt that means are employed in elections in this country which are altogether opposed not only to the spirit but the letter of the law. I am not speaking from a partisan standpoint; I am speaking of facts which we all know to exist, and while the law may quite properly be amended in the direction my hon. friend has suggested, I think the chief difliculty at the present time is that there are no sufficient means provided for enforcing the law. I am not sure that it may not be the duty of this government or of some subsequent government to make some provision for an officer who would have the same independence as the Auditor General, and whose duty it would be to look into any election in Canada where there is suspicion of any corruption, and to act as a public prosecutor, to see that those guilty of corruption and wrong-doing should be brought to Justice. Another suggestion has been made, which I think deserves the attention of the government as well as of us who are sitting in opposition; I mean the suggestion that one possible remedy for bribery at elections might be found in the enactment of a law providing that any man failing to vote at an election without sufficient excuse should lose the right to vote for a certain period afterwards, say seven years. At present there are two great abuses with regard to men voting at elections. One is the practice of paying men to stay at home and not vote. That is a sure way of making the use of money effective. In that way you cut down the vote of the opposite side. Then, there is the corrupt man who stays at home and will not go to the polls at all unless he is paid. I for one would be inclined to give a measure containing the amendments I have suggested very careful and favourable consideration.
Mr. EDWARD IIACKETT (West Prince, P.E.I.) Mr. Speaker, the Bill of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) meets with my full approval and support; but I would like to have added to it a clause that would compel the returning officer, in case of a recount, to deliver the ballot boxes to the judge of the county court. I have had experience of this need. We have been discussing to-day matters concerning the province of Ontario. I was elected at the last general election by a majority of three, and was declared elected. My opponent asked for a recount, and the ballot boxes were ordered to be taken from Alberton, in West Prince, to Summerside, where the judge resides. What happened in the meantime ? During their transit between Alberton and Summerside, one of the ballot boxes, in which I had a majority of thirty-five votes, was stolen from the car, for the pur-29*
pose of preventing the ballots being counted and depriving me of the seat I hold in this parliament. It makes very little difference whether Smith, Jones, Brown or Robinson holds the seat; but it is important that the electors of Canada should be protected, not only in casting their votes on the day of election, but in having their votes placed in the custody of the proper authorities. I brought this matter up in this parliament in the session of 1901, and explained the facts. I said then, as I say now, that the Minister of Railways, (Hon. Mr. Blair) was responsible for the safe delivery of those ballot boxes by the conductors and brakesmen in charge of the railway. These men are held responsible for the safe delivery of a barrel of flour or a barrel of sugar; yet they allowed the votes of a number of people in West Prince to be lost without making any effort to ascertain what had become of them. When the gentlemen who occupy the treasury benches saw that a hundred people in a polling division were being deprived of their rights and privileges as voters, why did they not make an effort to ascertain what had become of that ballot box ? But nothing was done. They allowed the transaction to pass without comment or action, simply because it was intended to deprive your humble servant of his place in this parliament.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: I would like to add a clause to this Bill, if the mover has no objection :
That any person found guilty of subscribing money towards an election fund with a view of bribing the electorate, shall be subject to a fine of not less than $500 and liable to six months' imprisonment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon.
On section 1.
William Humphrey Bennett: Take this subsection
(k) which reads :-
(k) Every person who, being an employer, pays his employees the wages or salary due, in pay envelopes, upon which there is written or printed any political motto, device or argument containing threats, express or implied, intended or calculated to influence the political opinions or actions of such employees, or within ninety days of a general election puts or otherwise exhibits in the establishment or place where his employees are engaged in labour, any handbill or placard containing any threat, notice or information, that if any particular ticket or candidate is elected or defeated, work in his place or establishment will cease in whole or in part, his establishment will be closed up, or the wages of his employees will be reduced, or other threats, express or implied, intended or calculated to influence the political opinions or actions of his employees.
It seems to me that if the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) will go back a few years, he will recollect when the great party to which he belongs had, as part of

its stock in trade in the election campaign, a certain pictorial exhibit which would come under this clause. Or if he does not, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) may recall that in the elections of 1891, his party made considerable capital out of a picture entitled ' putting the mortgage on the farm.' The artist depicted in that picture the worn out physiognomy of the wife, the sickly faces of the children, the pale features and tottering hand of the farmer as he was about putting his signature to the mortgage, and then the lesson was conveyed that unless the protective tariff were abolished in its entirety, foreclosure would inevitably follow. Surely the hon. member for North Norfolk is not going to prevent his party leader from putting before the public gaze once more pictures that may illustrate the effects of its policy. The particular picture to which 1 have referred may not be produced but there may be others. There may be pictures showing the prosperity of these manufacturers who have been given increased protection by this government. Now that the agricultural implements interest in this Dominion has been placed in a solid position by having two senators engaged in that business to represent it in the Upper Chamber, surely the hon. gentleman will not take from these two gentlemen the right to display illustrations in their establishments, showing how well the present tariff has worked in their interests. Surely he will not prevent the carriage manufacturers, who are benefited by a ttve per cent increased duty on cutters, depicting to an interested public the good effects of this increased protection given by the present government. I would ask the hon. gentleman to think over that clause, and perhaps out of gratitude to that old picture of the mortgage on the farm he may revise his opinion.


John Charlton: * The hon. gentleman lias made a comparison which does not apply. I am not professing in this clause to deal with the legitimate methods of influencing public opinion. It is a legitimate method to publish articles in newspapers and pictures in newspapers and to disseminate information in a general way. This clause does not seek to interfere with the liberty of the subject in that effect. Its object is to prevent personal threats by the employers. It deals only with an improper exercise of influence by an employer over his employees. It deals with the attempt to intimidate them by threats, to influence their action, by threatening to deprive them of employment or reduce their wages- actions just as reprehensible as the purchase of votes or the purchase of electors to remain away from the poll, actions which the law condemns and which are quite distinct from attempts made in a general way. by arguments on the platform or through


William Humphrey Bennett: the press or by pictorial illustrations for general circulation, to produce an impression on the general public. This subsection is to prohibit an employer from approaching an employee with threats to deprive him of employment or reduce his wages.


Mr. CLANCY.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) will permit me, I would like to ask him a question. Suppose that the employer of labour, instead of making these threats himself causes some one to circulate a report that the loss of employment or reduction of wages will follow the giving of voting in a certain way. This would be quite as effective as a direct threat. How does the hon. gentleman meet that ?


John Charlton: Under the provisions of the law, that would be an improper influence.


James Clancy: It is not specified, and it might be a very difficult thing to trace. If the employer were charged with it he might say that it was merely a general rumour for which he was not responsible.


John Charlton: What bearing has that upon this subsection ?


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman is attempting to remedy an evil, but there would be no remedy if the employer did not, personally commit the offence-and, of course, he would take good care not to identify himself with such a threat, but would take equally good care that somebody else should make that threat for him. I would like to call attention also to this clause :
(j.) Every person who by abduction, duress or any forcible or fraudulent device or contrivance, impedes, prevents or otherwise interferes with the free exercise of the elective franchise by any voter, or compels, induces, or prevails upon any voter to give or refrain from giving his vote for or against any candidate at any election ;	.
Now, the hon. gentleman had in his mind the repeal of section 112, because this would be a portion of section 112. There are many other means of intimidation that could not come under the provisions of this Bill. I have a Bill myself on the same subject. In the province of Ontario, the hon. gentleman knows very well, there is no secret ballot. And he knows very well also that that fact is made use of at every local election in the province of Ontario- not openly, it is true, because then it would lose its effect-to intimidate the electors, and that electors are so intimidated from one end of the province to the other. Men are told that they need not hope tol escape punishment if they vote against certain candidates, or, at least, that their only hope Is in the mercy of the men who know just how they vote. I have a Bill providing that every person who declares that the Dominion'ballot, which, as a matter of fact in a secret ballot, is not secret, shall be

punished. Men who have told that the local ballot is not secret, and have no means of knowing whether it is or not, hare been intimidated on more than one occasion by the statement that the Dominion ballot likewise is not secret. I have a Bill making it an indictable offence for any one to make that statement to intimidate voters. If you repeal section 112, which enumerates many actions which are offences under the law, you make it impossible to punish persons guilty of those actions. I am not a lawyer, but I venture to state that no lawyer drew the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Charlton's) Bill. It was drawn by a layman, I am sure, and it is quite as faulty as one would be that I might draw myself. I hope the hon. gentleman will not insist upon the form of his measure. And I am going to appeal to the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) upon this point. I would suggest to that hon. gentleman that we should not consider his Bill without considering also the Bill that I have on the same subject. I do not know anything that would be more likely to open the door to the very evils that, I have do doubt, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) means to remedy than the changes lie proposes-without considering the general effect of those changes. The hon. gentleman simply adopts a part of seetioh 112 and repeals the rest of that section. I am sure the Minister of Justice will agree with me. And I would ask him, for he is a good lawyer, not to attempt to deal with this Bill without considering other Bills on the subject. I think we should not have gone into Committee on this Bill without having at least taken into consideration, other Bills the enactment of which might be prevented by passing this one.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Charlton's) Bill is in the right direction. But I do not know whether it is intended to refer to companies employing labour.


John Charlton: It is.


Andrew B. Ingram: It seems to me that it is for individuals rather than for companies.


John Charlton: It applies to companies also, and the penalty for violation is that the company loses its charter.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to quote an instance involving a point which this Bill should be made to cover. In the last provincial election in North Perth, a certain railway official used his influence on behalf of a certain candidate. When remonstrated with, he denied using his influence, and to square himself he issued a circular something like this:	'This is to certify that
every employee of the company is at liberty to vote for John Brown without interference.' Now, John Brown happened to be the Liberal candidate. So, the employees
were told that they were at liberty to vote for the Liberal candidate. We should have a section of the Election Act providing that any interference on the part of a superintendent or general manager or other official of a railway designed to influence the votes of employees of the company should be a violation of the law. This would be a section in the interests of all, for we must realize that managers of these institutions are not always Liberals, and that the Liberal government will not always have it in their power to use influence with the employees of railway companies or other large corporations.


James Clancy: I would like to read to the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) the provision of Bill (No. 15) and to ask him to say whether it is covered by the Bill we are now discussing :
1. Section 112 of the Dominion Elections Act, 1900, is amended by adding after the word ' loss ' in the fifth line thereof, the following words: ' or makes use of any language to the effect that the ballot to he used or the mode of voting at the election is not secret.'
I ask the hon. gentleman now if section j of section 1, in the Bill of the hon. member for North Norfolk would include an offence such as I propose to punish in my Bill ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have carefully considered the hon. gentleman's Bill, and my impression is that his suggested amendment would be absolutely useless to effect the object he aims at. It would be useless, because his object is to reach the process of intimidation and to stop it. It is intimidation to say to a man : If you vote in this particular way I shall know it; I will know how you vote, because the ballot is not secret, and by the knowledge I have acquired, by the fact that the ballot is not secret, I will be able to injure you. There is a process of intimidation. Now section 112 says :
Every one who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes use of, or threatens to make use of, any force, violence or restraint, or inflicts, or threatens the infliction, by himself, or by or through any other person, of any injury, damage, harm or loss

Then the section goes on to say :
-or in any manner practices intimidation.
Now these general words are broad enough to cover the case suggested by my bon. friend, and it seems to me meets, as far as possible, the case he suggests. I think in drafting legislation of this sort it is always wise to make the words general enough to cover every case, instead of specializing a case, as suggested by his amendment.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman will permit me to say that I have stopped fai'

short of what he has read, and say ' any manner of intimidation.'


Robert Laird Borden: I hardly think, with all due deference to the opinion of the Minister of Justice, that the case comes within the term * intimidation.' A voter might not like to have his manner of voting known, and yet might not be oppressed by any sense of fear, he might not desire to have it known for social or business reasons. The fact would remain, however, that he did not desire it to be known, and if he thought it would be known, perhaps he might not vote at all. In this view it would hardly be said to come within the meaning of the word 'intimidation.' Of course the principle laid down by the Minister of Justice is a good one, to use general words and not to specialize. To attempt to specialize and not specialize thoroughly, would result in more harm than good. But there is this to be said in favour of the standpoint of my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) : He is speaking of something that has occurred in his own experience, he is speaking of a particular evil, and it would be possible to accomplish his amendment by providing that the special provision proposed as an amendment to the statute should not in any way restrict the effect of the general words which are used. I would like to understand from the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), why it is that he repeals section 112, and I would like him to point out to me whether all the provisions of 112 are included in this Bill, or if not, why he thinks they are not necessary ?


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: Perhaps it would be better to dispose of this clause in the form in which we have it now, and when we reach that repealing clause, 112, it can be discussed. There are some verbal changes in this clause which I think are necessary.


John Charlton: In answer to the question asked by the leader of the opposition,
I may say that the transfer of the section 112 to this place was due to the fact that I considered the section specified an offence in the same line as the subsection from ' a ' to the one preceding this, and put it there for the purpose of having the provisions with regard to punishment on the next page, applicable to this as well as to the others. If this was condensed somewhat we might yet believe that it embodied all the provisions contained in section 112. But if that is not the case, section 112 as it stands upon the statute-book can be substituted for the language here. It was transferred here merely for the purpose of bringing it and the other offences under one general term.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: In the last paragraph there is considerable change in the penalty. Two years is substituted for ' six months,' a penalty of $500 to $200, and there is disfranchisement for a period Mr. CLANCY.
of seven years under forfeiture of the charter. These provisions are entirely new. That clause will require careful consideration.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I want to point out that this section from the very beginning of subsection ' j ' would be much more effective if all the words after ' who ' in the lirst line of subsection ' j ' to the word ' impedes ' in the second line, were left out. I do not see why we sholuld limit the impeding, preventing, &c., to any particular sort of interference. It says:	' Every person
who by abduction, duress or any forcible or fraudulent device or contrivance, impedes.' Why should they impede at all ? Why should they impede, prevent or otherwise interfere with the free exercise of the elective franchise by any voter, in any way at all 1 One can see at once that a dozen cases might arise which a court would have to decide did not come within these words. I think the Minister of Justice will agree with me that if we would make the law effective, as we ought to try to do, we ought certainly to strike out these words so that if any one is impeded, prevented or otherwise interfered with in any way whatever there ought to be a penalty, instead of saying that the impeding must be done by ' abduction, duress or any forcible or fraudulent device or contrivance.' Any lawyer will see that you are hedging the prosecution around with many insuperable difficulties. I submit it would be much more effective, and better legislation, and would accomplish the object we have in view, if these words were struck out.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I think the House generally will agree that it is the desire of all parties to have an election law that is not only drastic, but one that will reach the various crimes that may be committed during, as well as prior to and subsequent to a political contest. There ought to be some provision that whenever a man, for any consideration, or under any promise, connives for an illegal purpose at getting information from another and in consideration of that information stifles the ends of justice, either in Canada or a foreign country, he ought to be punished. I find here that a case arose of that kind in the year 1899, and I propose to read to the House the evidence in order that the House may see the seriousness of the crime and the manner in which the information was procured.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is it evidence ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: Mr. Watson next introduced the question of the Detroit affidavits, read by Mr. Whitney in the legislature. The first one was, the witness said, made by Judge Carpenter on December 29 last. It was prepared by Mr. Barker. It was prepared by Mr. Barker, a lawyer of Hamilton, a tall, thin man. The document was written in the hotel Cadillac. The parties met

by appointment, a note being left with Mr. Spence, with wholn witness was staying, fixing the place of mseting. Mr. Spence went with him; they met Mr. Barker and Mr. Fleming, of Windsor.
In reply to Barker, witness said he would make an affidavit under certain conditions.
Q. Under what conditions ?-A. That they would withdraw the warrant that was out against me ; they would protect me.
Q. How ?-A. By allowing me to go home ; have the warrant withdrawn and not prosecute me, or something to that effect.
Q. In consideration of what ?-A. That I would tell them what I knew about the West Elgin election.
Q. Have the warrants been withdrawn ?-A. So far as I know, I would not be here if they had not been.
Q. Have you seen the warrants since ?-A.
I saw them once in Windsor in Mr. Fleming's office.
That statement was made by me a few moments ago ; I made it upon the authority of the man who had made the sworn statement. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has used rather strong language against me, even going so far, I think, as to call me a deliberate liar in stating what ITitchett swore to that he met the hon. member in Detroit, while if the bargain made at that meeting had been made in this country, would have rendered the member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) amenable to the criminal law.


Samuel Barker: I said a few moments ago distinctly that any man who makes the assertion which I understand the hon. member for South Sussex


Mahlon K. Cowan: Pritchett swore to it.


Samuel Barker: Any man, 1 do not care who or where he is, who makes the assertion that I ever promised to withdraw, or said one word to the effect that 1 would withdraw or procure the withdrawal of the warrant, or in any way interfere with the prosecution of Pritchett, or any other man, tells a deliberate falsehood. I saw the man Pritchett. He was about to make an affidavit and he did make the affidavit. He asked me in the presence of Mr. Fleming if, on behalf of the Conservative party, I would say that he should not be prosecuted. 1 told him distinctly half a dozen times that X would give him no such promise, that I could give him no such promise. I told him that the prosecution was in the hands of the Liberal party, that the county attorney of Elgin was a Liberal, and that if he wished to enforce the warrant he could do so.


Mahlon K. Cowan: How did you and Mr. Fleming get the warrant in your possession :


Samuel Barker: That statement that we got the warrant into our possession is an absolute falsehood. I never saw the warrant. I never heard of it- How would we get the warrant ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: From the constable ?


Samuel Barker: I did not know who the constable was.


Mahlon K. Cowan: The hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) knows.


Samuel Barker: I said that the matter was in the hands of the county attorney of Elgin-a Liberal.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Not a Liberal.


Samuel Barker: I say this to the hon. member (Mr. Cowan) that I did not promise to withdraw that warrant or any other warrant. I repeat it in the strongest language- I do not care who says it or who repeats it It is an absolute untruth and there is not the slightest foundation for it.


Mahlon K. Cowan: What I stated was-


William Humphrey Bennett: Give us Cap. Sullivan and his gang.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I do not know Cap. Sullivan, but apparently the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) does.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have seen the blackguard with your ministers.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I think that as both hon. members have had their say we had better proceed with the consideration of the Bill.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I have just had the first half of mine, Mr. Chairman. I want to be perfectly fair to the hon. member for Hamilton. All I can say is that Pritchett swore to it, that it was printed in every newspaper, that it was spoken of concerning the hon. member for Hamilton from many political platforms, and that it was brought up in this House. Yet, this is the first time that I have ever heard any contradiction of it. Pritchett swears that the hon. member for Hamilton prepared the affidavit and he swears that they had the warrant and had it at Windsor. However, I am prepared to accept the statement of the hon. member for Hamilton and to congratulate him that he is the first hon. gentleman on the other side of the House to join with us in saying that Pritchett was a liar, because, down to the present time, hon. gentlemen opposite have always declared that he was the most truthful gentleman that ever gave evidence.


Samuel Barker: Mr. Chairman-


Peter Macdonald: I must urge hon. gentlemen


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh; fair play, fair play.


Peter Macdonald: Order. My object is to bring the committee back to the work before it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on ; go on.


Samuel Barker: The hon. member for South Essex says that I never denied it. I denied it- the first time the statement was ever made in my presence. He says further that the warrant was withdrawn in Windsor.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I made no such statement. I said that Pritchett said that he afterwards saw the warrant in Mr. Fleming's office, who was the gentleman who was with you when the affidavit was drawn and when you made the promise, if a promise was made.


Samuel Barker: I was never present in Mr. Fleming's office in Windsor and I cannot say whether that is true or not. I can only answer for what occurred when I was present. Pritchett was told positively that the warrant would not be withdrawn, that no effort would be made to withdraw it, and that if he returned to Canada he might be arrested so far as the Conservative party were concerned. I said : You will be arrested by the Liberals. He said :	Oh, I will
take the risk of being arrested by the Liberals. I dare them to arrest me.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They have not arrested him yet.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would ask the mover of this Bill if section ' K ' applies to companies or corporations, such as railway companies. There is very grave doubt as to whether it really applies to corporations and if it docs not apply to them it is useless. It would appear that au employer may not do certain things but a foreman engaged by an employer might do all the things in this section and yet it would not apply.


John Charlton: Look at the fifth line on the second page, ' or in case the offense is committed by a corporation it shall forfeit its charter.'


Andrew B. Ingram: That would not apply to the case I have mentioned.


William Humphrey Bennett: A great deal of this kind of legislation in Ontario is a laughing stock, and whether our federal legislation on this matter is going to follow suit remains to be seen. While the hon. gentleman who introduced the Bill is not a lawyer, the Minister of Justice is, and the Minister of Justice must b 5 responsible to the people for such legislation as this. It would appear to me that the manager of a railway or even the foreman on a railway, being an employee, could not be got at under clause 'J.' I agree with the principle of the Bill because no one in this House suffers more from intimidation than the candidate in East Simcoe. There are two large public institutions in that riding and the grossest intimidation is practiced by the gentlemen who are in charge of these institutions under the local government. In addition, the lumbering concerns are as a rule adverse to the cause I represent. There should be a Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.
clause added to this Bill to meet such cases as that. I have known it to occur that on the day prior to ail election* the men were called before the mill at the dinner hour and were frankly told-this occurred in the local election-that owing to t'.ie numbers being on tlie ballots it would be known bow they voted, that there would be an officer of the compauy iu the poll to keep watch, and that in the interest of the company the men must support the Liberal candidate. That has also been done in the federal contest. The employer thinks that a more efficacious way than to issue a circular which might come up in evidence against him. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) wants to meet such cases of intimidation as that he must amend his Bill. A deaf and dumb employer would be denied the privilege of suggesting to his men by letter or circular how ho wishes them to vote, but tlio employer who is fluent of speech can intimidate his men into voting as he wishes. But there is another view of this matter. Surely the lawT will not say that the owner of a manufacturing concern must not m conversation with his men express his opinion as to how-lie thinks the tariff for instance might affect his particular industry. That would be hampering the right of the individuals If this Bill really carries out the view the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) seems to have, he would have to provide for the punishment of a manufacturer who at a public meeting expresses liis opinion as to what results a change of tariff would have on tlie particular industry with which he is concerned.


Andrew B. Ingram: I submit that the Minister of Justice should have some opinion to give on this Bill.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have been appealed to more than once but whenever I rose to reply some hon. gentleman had intervened to address the House. When this Bill was introduced I was under the Impression that it met with general acceptance and I was anxious to hear what should be said in favour of it. I was anxious that it should get into committee so that we might bear the details discussed. So far as my opinion is concerned of any value to this House I would say that the clauses of this Bill down to clause ' L ' provide for nothing that is not provided for by section 112, and that section 112 provides for many things that are not provided for by this Bill. The difficulty suggested about the employer, or the employee or the foremen would be met by section 112, and it is not met by this Bill.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is a very good reason why in the case of Bills of this character the clauses which it is proposed to amend should be printed so that we know what we are doing.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I did not intend this Bill to get out ot committee with-

out saying what I had to say about it. Some people pretended to be very virtuous when this Bill was introduced, and anxious that it should become law, and I was waiting until my time came to express an opinion about it.


Andrew B. Ingram: It occurred to me that the Bill -was in the right direction but whether it -was not already provided for by law I was unable to say. I have had occasion to study tile Election Act pretty frequently but I confess that I cannot carry out all its clauses in my head. If the clauses which it is sought to amend were printed we would know what we are doing.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Some thing may be said in favour of subsections ' L ' and ' N ' of subsection 1, but that is all I think that would be useful In the Bill. The provision in subsection 2 is better met under the Canada Evidence Act. Section 4 goes too far and will fail entirely of the purpose my hon. friend (Mr. Charlton) has in view I expected to hear the Bill fully discussed in committee, and then to ask that the committee should rise and at a future date I might have some statement to make in connection with the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: To whom did the Minister of Justice refer to as being very virtuous and wishing the Bill to pass ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would rather not pursue that matter any further.


Robert Laird Borden: Our object on this side of the House is to make the Bill as efficient as possible. Some time ago I myself made the suggestion which the Minister of Justice has now made that subsections ' J ' and ' K ' do not embody all the provisions of section 112, I think that the Minister of Justice should be able to tell us now what is the policy of the government in regard to this. A public Bill of this kind is under the control of the government and should be dealt with by the government, and I expected that the Minister of Justice would place before us for consideration the amendments which he thought ought to be made. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice has not done that. I think he ought to do it as being responsible for legislation of this character. That is to say, he should come here witli a suggestion of amendments which the government think ought to be made in this Bill and let the Committee have a chance of considering them. I fully agree that we cannot pass the Bill in just its present form, though I am not clear as to my concurrence in some of the suggestions which the hon. Minister of Justice has made. The Bill will require considerable amendment before it is passed. In saying that I am sincerely desirous of assisting the hon. gentleman who has introduced it in his very good intention of making the election law more effective. But I would like to know whether the government have had under consideration the two possible amendments which I suggested on the motion for the second reading of the Bill. One is the appointment of an officer to fill the position of public prosecutor under the election law, who should be placed in the same independent position as the Auditor General now ocupies. The other, which would be more pertinent as an amendment to the Franchise Act, is to provide that any man who does not see fit to exercise his franchise shall not have the opportunity of exercising it for some time thereafter. I think the two sides of the House might meet on common ground with regard to some of these matters, and do much to remedy a condition of affairs that is not creditable to either political party in Canada.


Jabel Robinson: I would like, before the Committee rises, to have this added to the Bill :
That any person known to subscribe to an election fund shall be liable to a fine of not less than $500 and to be imprisoned for not less than six months, with or without hard labour.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: With reference to the remarks of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, I always carefully consider to the best of my ability legislation of this sort before it is brought before the House. At the same time, I do not think it would be right or proper for me to express a final or settled opinion until I hear all that is to be said on the measure. I come here for the purpose of listening to the discussion. I have my opinions, but they are not, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, unalterable. I come here for light, and perhaps, after I hear further discussion, I may change some of my opinions. I wish to have the measure discussed by men who, from their _ experience in election courts, can give light on many of these matters; and when it is fully discussed, my intention is to ask the Committee to rise and report progress, so that I may have an opportunity of considering nil that has been said, and. when the Committee meets again. I may have some statement to make to the House.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend's remarks have reference, and very properly, to this particular Bill. My own view, speaking for myself-and I do not think my colleague will dissent from it-is that the representatives of the people on both sides, by a special committee, ought to take into consideration the question how we might amend the electoral law so as to avoid those evils which have received so much prominence in the past. I am glad to hear the hon. leader of the opposition speak in the same sense to-day. It is not worth while for ns to make recriminations across the House in regard to the conduct of elections. We must recognize, from the revelations of the election courts, that there

have been manifestations in connection with elections which must be a cause of regret to men on both sides; and if we approach the subject dispassionately, with a desire to bring about some improvement, I think something might be done. One view I have held so strongly that it has been called a fad, is that the courts should themselves take cognizance of an election without waiting for a petition. The judges might investigate an election, say within one month or two months after it took place, while it is fresh in the public mind, and while men are ready to bring forward evidence if they have it. The present method of requiring a petition to be filed is open to objection. For instance, it is wrong to fine a man a thousand dollars before allowing him to file a petition. If there has been corruption in an election, we ought not to put difficulties in the way of an investigation, which is done as the law now stands. It might lie difficult to get the judges to perform the duty I suggest; but after all, while some of the judges are overworked, a considerable number of them have ample time to undertake it. They would not wait for a petition, but the investigation would be compulsory. Then, when I went into an election campaign, I would go into it with the fact before my eyes that shortly afterwards my conduct would be investigated.


Andrew B. Ingram: What does the hon. gentleman think of compulsory voting ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Compulsory voting in the ordinary sense of the word we should hesitate to enforce; but such compulsory voting as has been referred to this afternoon is, I think, well worthy of consideration; that is, that if an elector does not think enough of the franchise to cast his vote, his name should be left off the list for some time afterwards. To that extent I would favour compulsory voting. Many of these questions present difficulties, but we are here to try to solve these difficulties, and I am persuaded that if hon. gentlemen on both sides, instead of fighting each other, united to devise the best remedy for the evils referred to, we could accomplish much good. With regard to the trading off of election petitions, it does seem a public scandal; but on the other hand one-half of the petitions are filed without any knowledge or information, and there is no great harm in withdrawing them. But with a proper administration of our election laws, we might save a great deal of scandal and trouble that now exists. We should make an attempt in a non-partisan spirit, and if our hon. friends opposite will receive the suggestion in that spirit, we would be glad to meet them in a committee and endeavour to bring about a reform in the law, not simply to the extent to which the hon. member for North Norfolk desires, but beyond that in other directions that may make for purity in elections.


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: 


Andrew B. Ingram: I would suggest that the government bring in a resolution for the appointment of a committee for that purpose.
At six o'clock Committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at Eight o'clock.


John Charlton: There seems to be a very thin House to-night, and just before recess the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) suggested the striking of a special committee for the purpose of considering the provisions of this Bill and also other features of the election law, and formulating, if possible, a complete measure. Perhaps under the circumstances it would be better not to proceed with this Bill now. Neither the Minister of Justice nor the Minister of Finance is here, and many hon. members who had participated in this debate are absent. The proposition made by the hon. Minister of Finance can scarcely be considered in his absence, and I think the better course would be to rise and report progress. I beg therefore to move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 19) respecting drainage on and across the property of railway companies.- Mr. Cowan.

[Stage Direction]
Return of all goods of whatsoever kind entered by the Intercolonial Railway duty free, for use of said railway.-Mr. Fowler.
Copies of all Orders in Council, documents, and corespondence between the Government, or any Department, and Messrs. McKenzie & Mann, or the Canadian Northern Railway.-Hon. Mr. Tarte.
Copies of all judgments or opinions delivered by the Supreme Court of Manitooa, touching the alleged rights of exemption from taxation, claimed by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, in respect of the land of the said company, in the North-west Territories, or in Manitoba.-Mr. Borden (Halifax).

Mr.  F. D.@: MONK (Jacques Cartier) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 18) to amend the Interpretation Act. He said :	Mr. Speaker, the Bill the second reading of which I have the honour to move was suggested to me by the sensation, if I may use such an expression, which was created in the province of Quebec at the time of the rendering of the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Roy vs. the Canadian

Pacific Railway Company. When I have stated the facts in that case as briefly as possible, the House will at once understand the object of the Bill under consideration. Roy was a farmer in the province of Quebec. His barn was in the neighbourhood of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The barn was consumed by fire, and Roy sought to recover damages from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company on the ground that his barn had been ignited by a spark from one of the locomotives of the company. He brought his action in the Supreme Court of the province of Quebec. The court of original jurisdiction rendered judgment in favour of Roy for the sum of $300. Mr. Justice Langelier, of the Superior Court, who heard the case in the first instance, and whosei judgment, as well as the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which was rendered subsequently, can be found in the Law reports, appeals cases, 1902, at page 220, held that the fire) had been caused by a spark from a locomotive of the Canadian Pacific Railway and one of his considera-ants or motives, reads as follows :
Considering that the circumstances unfolded in the case leave no doubt that the fire was kindled either by sparks escaping from the locomotive or by fire thrown in some other way from the train;
Considering that there thence results a presumption of negligence or carelessness on the parts of the defendant's employees in charge of the train, and that it was the defendants' duty to negative this presumption, which they have npt done ;
Considering that the defendants were responsible for damages caused to the plaintiff by the fire ;
-and the judge gave Roy a decree as I have said, for the sum of $300. An appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench in the province of Quebec was taken on the ground that, in fact and on the finding of the court below, it was not shown that the fire was caused by any act on the part of the appellant or their employees and also that the complainant had not proved negligence and that they were not liable by law. The Court of Appeals of the province of Quebec held that the Canadian Pacific Railway was responsible in spite of its proof, which the Court of Appeals considered satisfactory, that, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had adopted all the modern appliances necessary to prevent accidents by fire arising from sparks issuing from the smokestacks of their locomotives. In spite of this fact and of the argument, very strongly urged on the part of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that, having proved that they had taken every precaution and having been authorized by parliament to run their trains, they were not responsible for damages caused by the running of their trains, the Court of Appeals of the province of Quebec, considering that the defendants while authorized to operate their trains,! are, nevertheless, liable to damages which the exercise of this right may cause,
and, that, in this regard they are subject to the rules of liability fixed in this province, by the civil law of this province, affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. I may say here, for the information of the House, that the Court of Appeals based its judgment on the following articles of our civil code for lower Canada :
Article 356: civil corporations constituting, by the fact of their incorporation, ideal or artificial persons, are as such governed by the laws affecting individuals; saving the privileges they enjoy and the disabilities they are subject to.
Article 1053. Every person capable of discerning right from wrong is responsible for the damage caused by his fault to another, whether by positive act, imprudence, neglect or want of skill.
Article 1054. He is responsible not only for the damage caused by his own fault, but also for that caused by the fault of persons under his control .	.	. Masters and employers are responsible for the damage caused by their servants and workmen in the performance of the work for which they are employed.
Now, let me quote the remarks of Mr. Justice Hall in rendering the judgment of the Court of Appeals in the province of Quebec, as reported in the law reports- of appeal cases :
The appellants' argument is that as parliament has given to them the statutory power to use locomotives for hauling their trains, the necessary use of fire in them, and the occasional escape of sparks from them, must have been anticipated, and therefore, if every reasonable precaution is taken against such escapes the railway companies are relieved, in advance, of the consequence of any fire resulting from sparks accidentally escaping.
The appellants admit that at common law they would be responsible for damage to others caused by fires from their locomotives, irrespective of the question of negligence on their part, but contend that the statute, by authorizing the use of locomotives, has taken away the common law liability, and left them responsible only for the effect of negligence. The English authorities support this position, commencing with the case of Rex v. Pease (1), followed by Vaughan v. Taff Vale Railway Company (3), Fletcher v. Rylands (3), Smith v. London and Southwestern Railway Company (4), and lastly, the important case of Port Glasgow and Newark Sailcloth Company v. Caledonian Railway (5), with the report of which we have been favoured by Appellants' counsel, as found in 30 S.L.R. 587 (6), in which it was held : that the legislature by authorizing the use of steam engines on railways, has impliedly indemnified railway companies against the consequence of the use of such engines, provided they are of the best construction and that the proper safeguards are used for minimizing the risk of fire damage.
The same principle has evidently been fol-lowered in those provinces of the Dominion in which the English law has been adopted, and by our Supreme Court in cases which originated in such provinces.
Mr. Justice Hall proceeds as follows
The appellants have conclusively established, we think that the principle for which they contend is supported by English jurisprudence

wherever that jurisprudence is in force, but in a matter pertaining to civil rights end liabilities in this province we are controlled by a different authority, which is binding upon us whenever it conflicts with the law of England, as it does upon this question, and under that authority we are of opinion that a different rule prevails. As Mr. Holt clearly puts the matter in his Canadian Railway Law, page 18:
' The French law, and consequently the law in the province of Quebec, is that the (railway) company is always responsible, notwithstanding the adoption by them of every means of precaution known to science. Upon such question it is our duty to refer to the French jurisprudence and text writers, not that that country dictates or enforces our laws, but because our civil laws were derived from France, and find therefore, its best exponents. Their jurisprudence is uniform and conclusive, and proceeds upon a principle derived from the Roman law which must commend itself to all as both equitable and just, namely, that no one may use his property in such a way as to injure that of his neighbour, ' Sic utere tuo ut alieo ne lmdas' and the French authors carry this principle so far as to contend that even the legislature has not power to violate it, and that whenever it confers special privileges upon an individual or a company, the reserve in favour of the neighbours rights must be understood to have been intended.
Mr. Justice Boss6 spoke very much in the same terms. I may say that the judges of the Court of Appeal in the province of Quebec, in delivering this judgment, referred at great length to our constant jurisprudence in the province of Quebec upon that very subject. The cases which they quoted are reported at length in our own report, but they are summarized in this very full report, the Law Reports of Appeal Cases, 1902, page 220, the case of Roy. I will endeavour to be as short as possible and not go more fully into what was held by the Court of Appeal, as I think the House sufficiently understands that point. The case was taken to the Privy Council on the ground, X suppose, that rights in future might be affected, because the amount of the judgment was only $300. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council unanimously recommended that the judgment be set aside and the appeal maintained, and Roy's action was dismissed. It was dismissed without costs, because costs had not been asked for. The Lord Chancellor spoke as follows :-
The serious and important question sought to be raised in this appeal is whether the railway company, authorized by statute to carry on their railway undertaking in the place and by means that they do carry it on, are responsible in damage for injuries not caused by negligence but by the ordinary and normal use of their railway.
Both courts below have held that in the province of Quebec the railway company is so responsible and the question is whether that is the law.
The argument appears to be founded on the suggestion that Quebec has a civil law of its own, and that in that province all corporations like all other persons are responsible for causing damage to their neighbours by a fault- Mr. MONK.
that is to say, any actionable wrong, whether imprudence or want of skill ; and another article of the Code provides that civil corporations constituting by the fact of their incorporation ideal or artificial persons are as such governed by the laws affecting individuals, having the privileges they enjoy and the disabilities they are subjected to.
If the immunity claimed for the appellant were simply claimed upon the ground that they were a corporation without reference to what they are authorized to do in that capacity, the argument would be well founded; but the fallacy of the suggestion lies in supposing that immunity is claimed because they are a corporation. If it were so, there would be no difference between the law of England and 1he law as so expounded in the province of Quebec ; but the ground upon which the immunity of a railway company for injury caused by the normal use of their line is based is that the legislature, which is supreme, has authorized the particular thing so done in the place and by the means contemplated by the legislature, and that cannot constitute an actionable wrong in England any more than it can constitute a fault by the Quebec Code.
Further on the Lord Chancellor says
This permission

That is to say, the authorization of parliament to run a railroad.
This permission, of course, does not authorize the thing to be done negligently or even unnecessarily to cause damage to others. Much was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent as to the peculiar jurisprudence of Quebec, but in truth there is no such difference between the law of England and the law of Quebec in this respect as he seemed to suppose. The law of England, equally with the law of the province in question, affirms the maxim * Sic utere tuo ut alieo ne laedas.' But the previous state of the law, whether in Quebec, or France, or England, cannot render inoperative the positive enactment of a statute, and the whole case turns, not upon what was a common law of either country, but what is the true construction of plain words authorizing the doing of the very thing complained of.
The legislature is supreme and if it has enacted that a thing is lawful, such a thing cannot be a fault or an actionable wrong. The thing to be done is a privilege as well as a right and duty, and it seems to the Lordships it comes within the expressed language of the code (article 35G).
Now, Mr. Speaker, what I desire to call attention to is the fact that, as indicated by the remarks of the judges who delivered judgment in the Superior Court as well as in the Court of Appeal in our own province, there has never been any variance in our own province as to the principle hitherto prevailing there, namely, that persons or corporations, as in the present case, even when exercising a right, or doing something which has been expressly authorized by statute, if in the exercise of that right those persons or companies commit a wrong or cause damage, they are responsible for those damages. The jurisprudence in our own province has been uniform upon that point, and it sems to me, with all due re-

spect to the judgment rendered by their Lordships in the Privy Council, and it has seemed to a great many lawyers and judges in our own province, that this is the correct interpretation of our own law. The judgments in our own province have been uniform, and they are based upon holdings of the French courts, the highest courts in France, which, as Mr. Justice Hall said, in delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeals, are not binding upon us excepting in so far as they serve to interpret the principles of a system of law which is the same as that which prevails in our own province.
Therefore, I say that the jurisprudence in France as well as in the province of Quebec is uniform upon this subject. The bon. Minister of Justice, in a very exhaustive and able article which was published in one of our legal monthly publications, ' La Revue Legale,' goes very fully into the study of the case of Roy vs. the Canadian Pacific Railway Company which, as I stated in the beginning, has created a very widespread interest among the legal fraternity and I might almost say among the general public in the province of Quebec. The lion. Minister of Justice in that article quotes the two judgments rendered in France which, to a very large extent, insofar as they are to be considered as precedents, or expositions of the system of law, which is our own to a very large extent, held precisely as our courts have held. The case which has frequently been quoted before our own tribunals is the case of the First Chamber of the Imperial Court of Bordeaux which reversed the judgments of the imperial courts in France and held, as it has been held in our own courts unanimously in the province of Quebec, that, even where a railway company in France is authorized to carry on the operations of a railway company, to run trains with all the danger that it entails, even when duly authorized in every respect and observing all the precautions possible to avoid accidents, if a railway locomotive sets fire to a building in the( course of its operations the railway company is responsible. That is the decision of the Imperial Court of Bordeaux rendered in 1859. The second decision is the decision of the Tribunal of the Seine, also in 1859. I will not quote fully either of these judgments, though I intended to do so, but they hold absolutely the contrary of what was held by the Privy Council i'n this case of Roy. It is evident that in these cases the companies pleaded that they -were exercising the right authorized by the supreme authority of the land and that they exercised that right with all due precaution; nevertheless, under the articles of the French code, very similar, if not absolutely identical to our own in reference to torts, they were held responsible. I will also quote from an author who is a very high authority: indeed, he is the highest on questions of damages-Laurent.	Laurent,
one of our best commentators, referring to
the case of locomotives setting fire to buildings, exactly as in the case of Roy, says :
Fire, or sparks which escape trom locomotives often produce fires. Are companies in such case responsible ? There can be no doubt as to the affirmative answer to this question when the accident is produced by faulty construction of the locomotive. When the locomotive is provided with proper appliances to prevent the issuing of sparks out of the smokestack the question is more doubtful.
And he proceeds to quote the decision of the Bordeaux Court, adding :
One applies, in a case of this kind, the principles which regulate dangerous establishments. It would he useless for the company to invoke as an excuse the authorization which it has received to execute its works. The court will answer that the state has not conceded the right to cause damages.
My hon. friend the Minister of Justice, in this paper, seems to arrive at the conclusion, nevertheless, that there is no such authority in France as corresponds with our own parliament, particularly with the limitless authority which our parliaments have exercised, certainly, for a hundred years and as there is, according to the argument of the lion. Minister of Justice, no authority In France having the paramount strength which our parliament has, we cannot compare the jurisprudence of France with our own on a question of this kind. Well, the answer to that seems to me that although, as a matter of public law, if I say use that expression, the law making authority in France is not, in many respects, similar to the law making authority which we have here under British institutions, nevertheless, there is no doubt that in France railway companies, to exercise their rights, require the sanction of some supreme authority without which they cannot exercise those rights any more than railway companies can exercise them in our own country, and that, therefore, there is more analogy than this article of the hon. Minister of Justice would lead one to believe, there is more reason to give strength and value to the jurisprudence of France than at first sight one would think from the consideration invoked by the hon. Minister of Justice. But, at any rate, there can be no question as to what has obtained hitherto in our own country. The jurisprudence is all in the direction which I indicated as being the direction adopted by the Court of Appeals, when it decided the case of Roy. I do not say, for my own part, that, even admitting that there is a difference between the absolute and paramount authority of our parliament, and the authority which the administration possesses in France, it makes any difference in regard to the responsibility in a case such as the case of Roy. because, the principle which the Court of Appeal of the province of Quebec adopted in the case of Roy, was : that under our civil law the relation between a private individual such as Roy and a company such

as the Canadian Pacific Railway authorized to carry on its operations, is a relation which springs absolutely from our civil law-it is not governed by any principle of public law, but it is a relation which is governed absolutely by the principles of our civil code. And if we adopt these principles and adhere strictly to the doctrine of all our authors as to that relation ; even if the parliament of Canada has power to grant the most extensive privileges to a railway company or a telegraph company, or a company of any kind, nothing can disturb that relation as established by our Civil Code. Otherwise one would have to arrive at the conclusion that the civil relations which are entirely under the control of our provincial legislature, would be disturbed in every instance where the parliament of Canada has authorized the doing of certain things, and persons or companies enjoying the authorization of the parliament of Canada or of the Quebec legislature under this idea of a paramount authority, would be in a more advantageous position in regard to their civil relations with individuals than would ordinary persons who would not enjoy that special statutory advantage. That I think is contrary to justice and contrary to law. I am not going to attempt to discuss at length the question raised by the Minister of Justice in this interesting paper published by him; I shall not endeavour to establish before this House the principle, that under our law there was a civil responsibility in such a case as the Roy case. I proceed upon the principle that the interpretation given by our own courts to our own law is a proper interpretation, and that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council if it held that it was not the law of our province, was mistaken ; which is a possibility which has happened already, because we know that in certain cases-rare cases it is true-the Privy Council has reversed its own decisions. Taking as the point of departure, that that is our law, this Bill is the solution which I have endeavoured to apply to this question. It is impossible, of course, and it would be improper, to seek to change the judgment rendered by the Lords of the Privy Council, but after consultation with many lawyers in my province and some judges, we have come to the conclusion that to avoid the happening of such things in the future as happened in the Roy case, it would be a proper thing to amend section 7 of the Interpretation Act, in order to emphasize the fact that in Canada property and civil rights are subject entirely to the jurisdiction of the province. I will quote the article of the Interpretation Act which this Bill is intended to amend, and I may say that in any event it seems to me that the amendment of the Interpretation Act can do nothing but good in the future. Article 7 says :
In every Act of the parliament of Canada, unless the context otherwise requires :-


Mr. MONK.: (1.) The enactments apply to the whole of Canada.
(2.) No Act amending a previous Act which does not apply to all the provinces of Canada, and no enactments in any such amending Act, although of a substantive nature or form, shall apply to any province to which the amended Act does not apply, unless it is expressly provided that such amending Act or enactment shall apply to such province or to all the provinces of Canada.
The Bill which I propose amends paragraph 1 of section 7, and the section as amended would read as follows :
In every Act of the parliament of Canada unless the context otherwise provides : The enactments apply to the whole of Canada : Provided always, that no right, power or privilege conferred by an Act of the parliament of Canada, or by a charter granted under an Act of that parliament, shall exempt any person exercising that right, power or privilege, from any liability incurred by him under any Act of a legislature or under the common law.
This means that under section 7 as amended, there would be an affirmation In express terms, that no power granted by an Act of the parliament of Canada or by a charter, shall exempt any person exercising that right, power or privilege from any liability incurred under the law of the province relating to property and civil rights. That disposition of the Interpretation Act shall apply generally not only to railway companies, but to telegraph companies, electric companies and all industrial companies as to which there may be legislation in the future, and courts called upon to decide questions of tort or damage must take into consideration that clear indication in the law as amended, that whatever power the parliament of Canada can confer, it in no way interferes with the disposition of the law of one of the provinces under section 92 of the British North America Act, which reserves exclusively to the province the control as to property and civil rights. I do not know that it is possible for us here to go further than this. My hon. friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) has an Act before the House which I suppose I may say has been suggested by this same case of Roy.
My hon. friend in that Bill proposes a different remedy which at first sight seems very acceptable to those who believe, as we in the province of Quebec, that railway companies, even when exercising a statutory right, are nevertheless liable for the damages which they cause. The enactment proposed by my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville is that the railway companies shall be absolutely responsible for fires caused by their locomotives. But what I submit to this House is that by an enactment of that kind we are invading the legislative domain which by our constitution is reserved absolutely to the provinces. We are enacting a law having reference to property and civil rights, and I question very much

if that enactment would not be considered ultra vires of this legislature; and it presents this other feature, in that it imposes upon the other provinces a system of law as to tort and damages which has never prevailed there; because, I take it, although I am not familiar with their systems of law, that in the other provinces of this Dominion the rule of law laid down by the Privy Council in the case of Roy is the rule which prevails everywhere. It is only in the province of Quebec, under the system of the old Roman law and the French civil law, that we are in a certain sense exceptionally and advantageously situated in regard to fires such as happen in the case of Roy; and it is deemed important in our province that we should preserve that disposition of the law which requires railway companies to indemnify farmers and others whose barns are set fire to by the operation of the railways, whether they are exercising a statutory right or not. In other words, I have been induced to bring in this Bill in order to emphasize, if possible, the guarantee which our civil law gives in cases such as the one now under consideration. How far this Bill may succeed in preserving that privilege I do not know. I would be quite prepared to adopt any other remedy of a practical nature that might be suggested. But after careful consideration of the question, and after submitting that question to the consideration of a great number of persons in my province who are more conversant than I am with the intricacies of our law, they have come to the conclusion that the Bill now submitted to the House is the most effectual remedy that can be provided under the circumstances. At any rate, that Bill, by extending the provisions of the Interpretation Act, and by emphasizing the principle that any enactment of this legislature should not interfere with the enactments properly made of our own legislature, can do no harm. Therefore, I think the Bill ought to commend itself to the consideration of this House.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Hon. H. G. Carroll).: 
Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not dispute that.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I understood that the hon. gentleman did dispute it. At all events, the whole trend of his argument was that we should not interfere with matters of property and civil rights, which should be left to the province. That im.pression has been created by the discussion which took place here last session, so much so that the Minister of Justice has been accused in the press of being an enemy of the French civil law of the province of Quebec.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought that what the hon. gentleman has been stating is an elementary principle which has been well recognized for many years.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It settles this argument if it is.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not settle this matter of legislation, because this parliament can refrain from doing what it has the power to do.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman has admitted that his Bill is the result of the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Roy vs. the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Privy Council decided that when a railway company had taken all possible means to prevent fire, and when it was shown that there was no negligence on its part, the company was not responsible. This is not the first case in which this principle has been affirmed. It was affirmed in the case of Vaughan vs. Taff Vale Railway Company, the same principle was affirmed. The court held :
Although it may be true that if a person keep an animal of known dangerous propensities. or a dangerous instrument, he will be responsible to those who are thereby injured, independently of any negligence in the mode of dealing with the animal or using the instrument; yet when the legislature has sanctioned or authorized the use of a particular thing, and it is used for the purpose for which it was authorized and every precaution has been observed to prevent injury, the sanction of the legislature carries with it this consequence : that if the damage results from the use of any such thing, independently of negligence, the party using it is not responsible.
This is the same doctrine as that which lms been laid down in the case of Roy vs. the Canadian Pacific Railway. The courts of the province of Quebec, however, have hitherto leaned towards the doctrine that railway companies are responsible irrespective of negligence, but my hon. friend must not forget that in France a law was passed in 1845 which, while of course maintaining the liability of railway companies, limits that liability. Article 7 of the Law of the 12th July, 1845, forbids the placing of less than sixty feet from a railway of thatched roofs or other deposits of an inflammable nature :
Section 7 of the Law of July 15, 1865, prohibits the placing, within a distance of twenty metres from the track of a railway, of thatched roofs, hay.-stacks or any other materials of an inflammable nature.


Haughton Lennox: Does that law affect us ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It affects the interpretation of our Quebec civil law.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It has been argued by the hon. gentleman and others that when a building is destroyed by a fire caused by sparks from a locomotive, it is


Hon. Mr. CARROLL.: just as much expropriated as it could be under the ordinary process of law, and it was only equitable that the proprietor should be given compensation, but is this contingency affected by the Bill now before the House ? The Privy Council has declared that when they give a charter to a railway company, that carries with it a privilege. Should the hon. gentleman's Bill pass, the right which the company enjoy under this privilege would remain absolutely the same.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Supposing we incorporate an electric company and in carrying out the powers granted to it by our parliament, observing all due precautions, that electric company causes damage, does my hon. friend not think that in an action to recover our courts would to a certain extent, be guided by the affirmation of a principle contained id this enactment.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I am arguing the effect of the Bill of the hon. gentleman in the light of the judgment of the Privy Council. The Privy Council has decided that when we grant a charter we grant a privilege and the hon. gentleman's Bill provides :
(1.) The enactments apply to the whole of Canada : Provided always, that no right, power or privilege conferred by an Act of the parliament of Canada, or by a charter granted under an Act of that parliament, shall exempt any person exercising that right, power or privilege, from any liability incurred by him under any Act of a legislature or under the common law.
Supposing this law should pass, it will not affect the interpretation given those laws by the Privy Council. Our Quebec courts have decided that railway companies are responsible under our civil law, but the Privy Council has decided that they are not. It Is wholly a question of interpretation, and even should this Bill pass the) Privy Council will still decide that when we grant a charter to a railway company, we grant a privilege, and that privilege relieves the company of responsibility according to our civil law as it now stands. Of course if the legislatures change the law as to liability, then their legislation may clash with our legislation, and this may have serious consequences. I am in sympathy with the object of the hon. gentleman but I do not think that this Bill will accomplish it. I am rather disposed to think that the Bill of my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) will be more effective. I am therefore of the opinion that the Bill of the hon. gentleman should not pass, but that the House should rather consider the Bill of my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Demers).


Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I have placed upon the Order Paper a Bill, the object of which is similar to that aimed at by the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), which is

under discussion. I may perhaps be allowed briefly to explain the reasons why I have introduced this Bill, notwithstanding the tact that the hon. gentleman's Bill was already on the Order Paper. As just remarked by the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Carroll), the object aimed at by the hon. gentleman from Jacques Cartier is not likely to be readied by the measure which he has introduced. Indeed, this Bill enacts, that, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, any Act of the parliament of Canada must be so interpreted that it shall not exempt any person from any liability incurred by him under any Act of a provincial legislature.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has dealt with the matter. Had their Lordships declared that the laws of the province of Quebec did not apply, I grant that the amendment to the Interpretation Act, embodied in the hon. gentleman's Bill would attaiu the object sought. But the Privy Council have based their judgment on the Civil Code of the province of Quebec and they have said : ' The Dominion parliament grants a certain privilege to railway companies, and under section 356 of the Civil Code civil corporations, constituting by the fact of their incorporation real or artificial persons, are as such governed by 'Vue'laws	icCrriig * rifdivfanils, saving 'tut
privileges they enjoy under their charter. Hence it follows that, under the Civil Code, the privilege granted railway companies to carry on their business and operate their railways by means of locomotives is recognized beyond a doubt, and I believe the Bill introduced by my hon, friend does not provide a remedy. The Bill which I have brought down does not apply solely to the province of Quebec, but its object is to provide a common law as to the liability of railway companies, which shall apply to all the provinces of the Dominion.
The common law says that if I set fire to my property I am responsible for damage to a neighbour's property. That is the common law in Great Britain, in the United States and in all the provinces of the Dominion as well. The judgment rendered by the Privy Council does not say anything to the contrary, and the reason why the decision of our courts was set aside, not that our common law conflicts with the English common law, but because the power of our parliament is paramount. A railway company which is empowered by its charter to operate its line and to use locomotives for hauling its trains, is responsible, in common law, for damages to others from sparks emitted from locomotive engines. Therefore, it is in virtue of its charter that the company may claim a privilege conflicting with the common law.
Now, the object of my Bill is to say which is the common law that shall apply to all the provinces. So. I submit that the Bill introduced by my hon. friend does not 30
meet the case we are now dealing with.
I may perhaps be told that this has nothing to do with civil rights in the provinces. The answer to that objection is that the Railway Act embodies many provisions relating to property. For instance, you will find in the Railway Act provisions concerning land expropriations, which is beyond doubt a matter pertaining to civil rights. I may add that, during this session, we have had a Bill before this House, to the effect of providing compensation for owners of cattle, when there are no proper cattle-guards.
From session to session, within the last few years, we had this Bill before us, and I am not aware that any question as to whether it was intra vires of this parliament has ever been raised. From what I have said it follows that the only remedy is the one proposed in my Bill, namely, that recourse should be had to this parliament, within whose jurisdiction it is to remove all doubts as to privileges granted under charters obtained from parliament.


Mr. JOHN McGOWAN (Centre Wellington).: 
Robert Laird Borden: It is, of course, clearly laid down and has been plainly announced not only by the Privy Council, but in parliament that, in those matters over which this parliament has control, as in bankruptcy or insolvency or similar matters, it has the right to make all necessary provisions for the purposes of carrying out



Its legislation. For instance, it provides the procedure in respect of bankruptcy, and makes other necessary provisions which will occur to every lawyer who has considered the matter at all. Then, it necessarily follows that, in dealing with matters of this kind you must Interfere with civil rights and the jurisdiction of parliament to interfere with civil rights to that extent is undoubted, and has been so for a long time. It is quite competent for parliament to limit its legislation in that regard, as I suggested to my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Carroll), and, in doing so, to provide that the making of that enactment shall not extend beyond a certain limit so far as concerns its interference with civil rights. I do not think any person would doubt that. It would be competent for the parliament of Canada in making an enactment in regard to a railway or anything else to provide that the Act should not extend beyond a certain limit in its interference with civjl rights. That is all I meant by an interruption to which the lion. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) made some allusion. Now, the common law of England as announced in the recent decisions-that is, decisions within the last fifty years-is that the right to construct and operate a railway in a certain place is a bar against civil liability to any person injured by it, in the absence of negligence. And as the Solicitor General says, it must be shown to the court that the railway company has not employed the most improved appliances to prevent damage. That is not a principle applicable to railways alone, but to other similar works. A great many decisions during the last twenty five or thirty years have been given with regard to the erection of gas works. Very often the application of the principle depends upon the particular language of the statute. To every one who has had occasion to examine very closely the decisions with regard to this matter it will be plain on what very slight foundation the jurisprudence with regard to railways rested in the first instance. It depends very often upon the question whether the particular manufactory or railway is authorized in a particular place. A general power, for example, to erect a gas works does not necessarily give power to erect a gas works in a residential part of the city. But if you have power under the statute to erect a gas works or any other manufactory creating nuisance in a particular place, another result might follow^. The criticism that might fairly be offered to the language of the Bill is not exactly, it seems to me, on the lines suggested by the Solicitor General ? He does not seem to think that it is language that could amount to anything. On the contrary, it seem to me too comprehensive. It might have the effect of nullifying many Acts passed by this legislature.


Robert Laird Borden: 


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Absolutely.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If it means anything it means that.


Robert Laird Borden: It might be open to that argument, as I was suggesting privately to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). The hon. gentleman tells me that the Bill was drafted by other gentlemen and placed in his hands and his attention had not been directed to that. I think it is perfectly easy to deal with this matter from the standpoint of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, but I would be inclined to think, as I have suggested, that this may carry it too far.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: All I said was, that so far as the Quebec law is concerned, the language of the amendment would make no difference-the law would be the same.


Robert Laird Borden: I would not make any suggestion as to the Quebec law. I do not pretend to understand that. I do not know whether it would make a difference in the law of Quebec or not. But It seems to me it would have the effect of very materially altering the law not only for other provinces, but for Quebec also. A right or privilege may be given by statute but you come to the Interpretation Act and find it is taken away by this particular provision. For example, you find that an officer of the customs has a right to enter a house under certain circumstances and make a search. But you might find under this provision that he is not saved from the action for damages taken by the party whose house he has entered.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: And that which is declared by us to be a privilege might be an actionable wrong under the local legislature.


Robert Laird Borden: Or under the common law.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That wmuld be an anomaly for which we ought not to be responsible.


Robert Laird Borden: In dealing with the question whether this Bill ought to be passed or not, it is a question whether, assuming that it would be right to restore the law of Quebec to what it was supposed to be, this Bill -would not require considerable amendment before it should pass the House.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I should be a little reluctant
to express any opinion on this subject as raised by the hon. member's Bill, having had only a little while-since the discussion commenced-to turn it over in my mind. But I have been very much puzzled to find what limitations would be placed on the

Bill of the hon. gentleman. So far as 1 have been able to get at the meaning and effect of the language, particularly in the concluding portion of the clause, it would seem that parliament would be recognizing that what it granted with one hand it was, in an indirect manner through its Interpretation Act, taking away with the other. It would seem that while parliament was endeavouring to regulate the liabilities which attached necessarily to the exercise of the privilege Which it was conferring, it was at the same time, in explicit terms, recognizing that other liabilities which it had no hand at all in regulating, and which were necessary to the proper exercise of the privilege conferred, could be created by another legislative body or bodies, either to cut into or to supplement the liabilities which parliament itself, and the courts Interpreting the Act of parliament, considered would only attach to it. I do not know whether I make myself clear, but it is very much in the line of the trouble which suggests itself to the mind of the hon. the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Borden). They say here that no authority or privilege conferred by parliament shall exempt any person exercising that law from any liability which the legislature may attach to its exercise, 'or which the common law would attach to its exercise. The legislature might make an enactment which would be in its operation and effect distinctly contrary to the intention of parliament. Parliament might say that under the railway charter a company might go on and expropriate lands under certain conditions; the legislature might say that if lands are expropriated by any railway company, and civil rights are interfered with, and property taken, such and such responsibilities must attach. I do not wish to speak too decidedly as to the proper meaning of these words, but it seems that you would absolutely leave the legislation of this parliament in such a maze of complications that no one could tell where they were, no one would care to accept any charter, and no one would ask for any privilege for fear he might find himself absolutely ruined by attempting to exercise it. I would think, off-hand, that if it is the opinion of parliament that the law as it stands to-day with respect to liabilities of railway companies in reference to such cases as my hon. friend has in his mind, ought to be changed, modified or reconsidered in some form, it would be equally within the competence of parliament to do it, and would more surely prove that the Act which my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) has introduced would provide a remedy. I have not examined his Bill, but I heard what has fallen from hon. members who have spoken upon it, I do not know how far parliament ought to go in respect to that, therefore I reserve my opinion upon it. It seems to me that we can see where we are going in the case of 301
the Bill of my hon. friend from Iberville, but we cannot see where we are going in the Bill of my hon. friend opposite.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I considered when this Bill was. first introduced that it was one of the most serious pieces of legislation that we were called upon to deal with. It is legislation fraught with the most serious consequences, if it were placed on our statutes. In effect, what is it that this amendment to the Interpretation Act asks us to do ? It asks us to declare that when we confer upon a corporation that we have a right to bring Into existence, certain powers and privileges, that corporation can only exercise those powers and privileges subject to the legislation of the provinces over which we have absolutely no control. Now to state the case in that way is to show the importance of the legislation.


Robert Laird Borden: That is, so fains civil liabilities are concerned.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, that would be the anomalous position that we would take, the anomalous legislation we would be responsible for, if the parliament of Canada were to declare that a corporation should have a right to do a thing, or if we enjoined upon a corporation to do a certain thing, and then we were to confer upon a province a right to declare that that which we empowered the corporation to do, was an actionable wrong. One does not require to go any further than to state that. Take, for instance, the case of a railway company connecting two or more provinces together. In order that that railway company might get its charter it will be forced to come here and get legislation from us; and in our legislation we would say that they had a right to operate within these provinces. Our legislation provides as to the equipment of that railway, as to the mode of protecting of rights and property of the public which that railway has to adopt. But the very moment that railway company went into operation, if this Bill were passed into law, when that railway company operated in different provinces, each province would have a right to say : You shall not operate that railway except subject to the conditions we impose upon you. Where would that lead us ? Is it conceivable that we would pass such legislation as that ? I do not mean to discuss the matter any further than to show what the consequences of such legislation would be.
I said a moment ago, in answer to a remark that fell from the hon. leader of the opposition, that the moment you concede the right of the Dominion parliament in a proper case to interfere with civil rights in a province, that very moment you concede that the judgment of the Privy Council in Roy and the Canadian Pacific Railway was

a proper judgment. And what is the reason for it ? The code of the province of Quebec upon which so much reliance has been placed, is only a statute, and the provincial legislature can amend it in respect to those things upon which it has a right to legislate, it can amend it either by direct legislation or inferentially. And with respect to those matters over which we have control and with which we have a right to interfere, we can amend the code, and we are doing it all the time. When we give a railway company the right to operate in a province and say that that corporation shall be exempted from liability provided it compiles with certain requirements, we are within our constitutional rights. I never could understand the reason of the judgment upon which the Court of Appeals-I say if. with all due respect-rendered judgment in this case. They talk about sic utere tuo ut aliemum non laedas. That is a principle of law applicable to the common law of England as well as to our own, and if you are authorized to do a thing by this parliament, you cannot be held to have done that which will make you liable for damages. If this parliament authorizes the doing of a thing, and says to you :	We confer upon you authority to do so and so, on what principle of law can you be held responsible for damages for exercising that right which we confer upon you ? It seems to me I need not go further in the discussion of this case of Roy and the Canadian Pacific Railway. At one time that case was considered in our province as of the highest importance, far reaching in its consequences and as an infringement upon the rights of our provinces in respect to civil rights. Perhaps it may be impertinence on my part, but, not agreeing with that view, I ventured to write an article in one of our legal papers to which the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) referred, so that I need not weary the House by repeating what I said there.


Robert Laird Borden: In stating that there might be legislation which would remedy the condition of affairs brought about by this decision of the Privy Council, of course, I am not considering whether the Quebec decisions are right or wrong. What I venture to suggest and what I believe to be right is that the parliament of Canada in incorporating any railway company may say this : The company may build a line between two given points, it may operate that line, but in so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, if it creates any damage by fire through its engines it shall be responsible to the same extent as if it had not received the protection of this statute.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is no doubt about that.


Robert Laird Borden: It can limit the extent to which the civil liability is incurred.


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not understand my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Plalifax) to intimate that he would be taken as approving of any such legislation.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not discussing the policy of the legislation. I am merely discussing the power of this parliament. In other words, I am stating what is tlie simple fact that this parliament, having power to go to the utmost extent in regard to civil rights, need not go to such an extent, but can go only half way, dr not at all, and so the civil liability would still remain.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I may say that I have no special desire to see this particular Bill passed, but 1 do not think the legislation is of such an extraordinary character as tlie hon. Minister of Justice indicates. The point raised by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals and by the hon. member for Halifax, strikes me as being a very important one; that is to say, that this legislation is too comprehensive. It is the first time that the point has been indicated to me. The hon. Minister of Justice has never mentioned or indicated it before, but I may say that just such legislation as my hon. friend from Halifax pointed out a moment ago as being within the purview of this legislature has already bean enacted in this parliament. The Railway Act, to give an instance of it, section 288, speaking of the results of the inspection of railways as regards civil liability, says. I do not want to read the whole section :
No inspection had under this Act

in any manner or way to lessen such liability or responsibility of any such company, under the laws in force in the province in which such liability or responsibility crises.
That is an example of legislation which is, I think, quite within our powers exactly on the lines mentioned as possible by the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals, and if the Bill now under consideration in this House lias a fault it is the fault of going too far, as has been indicated, but it is on tlie same lines as section 288 of the statute.


The . MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND  CANALS@: I agree with the hon. gentleman that it is on the same lines; yet, the extent to which that Act goes is clear. It states just exactly the ground it wants to cover and it stops there.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The effect of article 288 is exactly to produce the effect which the hon. Minister of Justice considered as an absurdity, because, that section, as I read it. says : Whatever may be the inspection made your liability as a railway company will remain what it ought to be under the civil law of the province.


Tlie MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Read what the Privy Council says on that section at page 231 of the report of the Roy case.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will in a minute. I am reasoning on the section as I understand it irrespective of wliat the Privy Council may have decided. I submit that under that section the province of Ontario, or the province of Quebec, by their legislatures, may impose any kind of liability on a railway. Is that not the case ?


Tile MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think so.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It may be within its sphere because the Privy Council decided a very long time ago in a case of which I forget the title at the present moment that there is a division of the field and that when the parliament of Canada is within its powers and exercises these powers it may exercise them to the fullest extent in order to carry out the object of its creation to a certain extent invading the provincial powers.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does my hon. friend not see that the section is framed for the purpose of rendering it impossible for any party to contend that because there has been an inspection and that inspection has produced certain results, or certain conclusions have been arrived at, the fact of these conclusions having been arrived at-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Relieves him from responsibility.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, it does not either enhance or diminish the liability that the railway company would be subject to if the inspection had not been made.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understand that the object of that enactment in the Railway Act to which I refer is to stop the railway company from saying : AVe have been inspected, this is the result, and therefore, we are not liable to damages.


The MINISTER OF RAILAVAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, that is the object.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, on the same lines, in the case of Roy, the railway company said : AVe have been authorized by the statutes of the Dominion of Canada to operate this railway and whatever may be the law in the province of Quebec in regard to torts, or damages, this statute of the Dominion of Canada protects us. That is the way I understand it and the object of this Bill, although I admit it may be too comprehensive, is to declare that no enactment of the Dominion parliament will have the effect of exercising a right conferred by the Dominion parliament from liability under the common law of the province or any Act of the legislature within the powers of the legislature. Of course, if you suppose a case such as the hon. Minister of Justice supposed a moment ago of a statute of the province of Quebec nullifying an enactment of the Dominion parliament in respect to
railways over which it has control, that enactment in the provincial legislature would be ultra vires, would be beyond its powers, because, under the Constitutional Act we have control here over certain railways in the matter of legislation. Under the decision of the Privy Council and which effect the jurisprudence of our courts in regard to railways to the fullest extent that might be necessary in order that we might fully exercise our powers under section 91 of the Confederation Act. But, we cannot go beyond.
I submit that we cannot enact in the parliament of Canada, the Bill which my hon. friend (Mr. Demers, Iberville) has before the House, because we would then be legislating the question of civil rights which is reserved exclusively to the provinces. If the Bill of my hon. friend should become law, there would be a different kind of liability in the English provinces for railway companies from what there is for individuals. There would be a special liability for railway companies enacted by this parliament, which would not be the civil law of the province. The difficulty I find in the Bill of my hon. friend is that it invades the provincial domain, although at first sight it would seem to be far the simplest way to remedy the evil. The judges of the Privy Council declared that the civil law of the province of Quebec applied in this case of Roy, but they interpreted it differently from the interpretation given to it hitherto in all countries which are governed by the principles of the old French law. There is no doubt in my mind that they were right in finding that the principle which must apply in this case is the principle of our provincial law, and if the legislation suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Demers, Iberville) became law, it would be contrary to the jurisprudence of the Privy Council in the case of Roy, and the generally accepted jurisprudence, that it would be an invasion of the provincial domain of legislation. These are the words in this Act to which exception has been taken on the ground that they are too comprehensive:
No enactments ot the parliament of Canada shall exempt any person exercising a right, power or privilege under a Dominion slatute, from any liability incurred by him under any Act of the legislature or uuder the common law.
It is certainly of a very general character, but I think that it must be understood in the sense in which it has been intended and has stood upon our statute-books for a very .long time. Under section 288, of the Railway Act, nothing shall exempt a person holding powers from this legislature from liability under the common law of the province or any Act of the legislature, in so far as the common law will apply, or the Act of legislature is within the power of the legislature. No man would pretend that it would be in the power of the legislature to enact laws nullifying intra vires enact-

ments of our parliament here. I do not think that any such Act of the provincial legislature would be considered constitutional. The difficulty is the division of the field of legislation between the two powers. If there was no division of the field, the Bill presented by my hon. friend (Mr. Demers, Iberville) would be a very much simpler way to remedy the crying evil which exists in the other provinces where there is no doubt whatever that the decision in the case of Roy would properly apply. But the difficulty in this case is that it is a question of civil law, and I submit that the furthest that we can go is to declare that no empowering enactment passed here ; not only in regard to railway companies but in regard to any enterprise whatever which this parliament has the power to regulate, shall be construed as exempting the party exercising that power from the control of the legislature in so far as that control may be exercised, or from the common law of the province in so far as that common law may apply ; and it can only apply as restricted by the provisions of our Confederation Act.
Motion (Sir. Slonk) for the second reading of the Bill negatived on division.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. 6. Blair) moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think our chief business will be the consideration of the estimates.


Robert Laird Borden: What department ?
The S1INISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. We will continue the Public Work's estimates in the hope that we may be able to finish them.
The S1INISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES. There seems to be some delay in the translation of the Bills, and we will likely have to go on with the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 3, 1903.