1903-04-01

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 67) to incorporate the Brockville and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Taylor.
Bill (No. 68) to incorporate the Lumbermen's Fire Insurance Company-Mr. Charlton.
Bill (No. 69) to incorporate the Northwest Coal and Coke Railway Company.- -Mr. Scott.
Bill (No. 70) to incorporate the Macleod, Cardston and Montana Railway Company.- Mr. Scott.
Bill (No. 71) to incorporate the Imperial Company.-Mr. Bickerdike.
Bill (No. 72) respecting the Bank of Montreal.-Mr. Bickerdike.
Bill (No. 73) to incorporate the Ontario and Quebec Power Company.-Mr. Talbot.

Mr.  L. N.@: Champagne (Wright) moved :
That this House doth concur in the first report of the Select Committee appointed to supervise the Official Report of the Debates of this House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 74) to amend the Railway Act.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Will the hon. gentleman kindly explain the nature of the Bill ?


Mr. GUTHRIE.: This is a Bill the main provisions of which were incorporated in a Bill which I introduced last session, but which, owing to the lateness of the date when it was introduced, was not read a second time. It is a measure for the purpose of safe guarding the interests of workmen and employees of railway companies which under existing legislation are somewhat jeopardized. During the recess I have received considerable information on the subject and have incorporated some new provisions in the Bill which I introduced last session. The grievances which the Bill seeks to remedy may be classed under three heads. Railway employees object that they are now, in many instances, compelled to become members of insurance and benefit societies merely as a condition or an incident of their engagement. They complain also that having regard to the amount charged against them by these societies, the amount of insurance which they receive in case of accident or death is entirely inadequate. I believe, however, that the main cause of their complaint is that on becoming members of such societies, they forfeit their common law rights in the case of injury resulting to them through the negligence of the company or their fellow-servants. I am free to admit that the law is not very clear upon the question of the liability arising out of the relations of a railway company to its employees in cases where particular contracts have been entered into between them. In the case of the Grand Trunk Railway, which employs something like 25,000 members. the company has formed, under the authority of special Acts of parliament, a benefit society to which their employees are

bound to subscribe. On entering the employment of the Grand Trunk Railway, they are bound to join that society. One of its by-laws or rules, to which objection is taken,, is by-law No. 15, which provides that in the event of accident from whatever cause the railway company shall be exonerated from all liability. Last year I understood that the Grand Trunk Railway was the only company which imposed such a condition on its employees. A good deal of litigation has arisen over that provision, both in Ontario and in Quebec, and probably also in other provinces. In the case of Holton versus the Grand Trunk Railway, tried in Hamilton, it was decided by the court of first instance that by-law No. 15 was an absolute bar to recovery by the employees. That case went to the Court of Appeal, but no decision was reached upon that particular point, as the decision of the first court was maintained upon the question of contributory negligence. In the province of Quebec the question was also brought into court in a case against the Intercolonial, which has a similar in- surance or provident society and a similar by-law. Tlie Exchequer Court held that the widow of a deceased employee could recover, but on appeal to the Supreme Court this finding was reversed. The Supreme Court of Canada held that a similar condition to that imposed by the Grand Trunk [DOT]Railway was effective and protected the government of Canada from liability in case of accident. I admit that such findings, while they may be strictly in accord with the statute law of the country, are entirely opposed to the' trend of all modern legislation, which is to give greater protection to the employees, and in the case of accident give him or his representatives proper redress where the accident occurred through the negligence, either of the company itself or his fellow-servants. The Bill that I have now introduced provides, not that there shall be any bar to the contracting out of liability, but that if any attempt be made by an employee to contract out of his common law liability, that contract shall be subject to the supervision of the court and shall not stand unless it can be shown that it was made upon proper consideration and is, in the mind of the judge, a reasonable contract. The Bill secondly provides that it shall be optional with an employee whether he become a member of such benevolent or insurance society or not. The Bill further provides that those workmen or employees, who are at present members of such societies, may upon reasonable notice withdraw from them. Fourthly, it provides that the provisions of this Bill shall apply to government railways. I make this provision because in the new Railway Bill introduced this session, there is a provision that it shall not apply to government railways.


Hugh Guthrie: 


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


Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	For what reason was the artificial lighting of this chamber changed or altered since last session ?
2.	Were any complaints received last session against the artificial lighting of this chamber ? And if so, by whom ?
3.	What was t.he cost of making the change in the lighting of this chamber, and who did the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. Jas. Sutherland) :: 1.	To give the Canada General Electric Company, an opportunity to demonstrate, as they claimed, that their arc lamps! were superior to the incandescent.
2.	No complaints were made.
3.	No expense attached, the same wiring
was used and the company installed the lamps on trial.	[DOT]


DOMINION LANDS.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette) asked :: 1.	On what principle are Dominion lands sold in Manitoba and North-west Territories ?
2.	On what principle are prices fixed ?
3.	Who has authority to fix prices and terms?
4.	What is the average price received for lands sold since July 1, 1902 ?
5.	Have any blocks of 10,000 acres or over been sold ? If so, in what district, to whom, and at what price, since July 1, 1902 ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock) :: 1.	Generally speaking no agricultural lands are being sold, such lands at the disposal of the department being now held for homestead entry by actual settlers. In exceptional cases, however, where a settler is not entitled to homestead, or where he has missed the right of second entry by a technicality or a few days shortage in residence, or where first homestead is of such poor quality that he cannot make a living on it, land is sold to him subject to homestead conditions.
2.	The regulations fix the price of coal at $7 (bituminous) per acre ; and $17 (anthracite); minerals (other than coal) $1 per acre; and surface rights on coal and farming lands $3 per acre. The regulations governing the disposal of Dominion lands give the Minister of the Interior authority under certain conditions to dispose of lands at not less than the minimum price of $1 per acre.
3.	The Minister of the Interior.
4.	$3.60 per acre.
5.	Since 1st July, 1902, no blocks of 10,000 acres or over have been sold. An

agreement, however, has been entered into with the Canadian North-west Irrigation Company by which, upon their fulfilling certain irrigation conditions, they will have permission to purchase a block of 500,000 acres. Price $3 per acre subject to a rebate for expenditure in irrigation not exceeding $2 per acre. The land is situated south-east of Lethbridge in the semi-arid district.


FREE LIST OR LOWERED DUTY.
Mr. CLARE asked :: Have there been any changes made in the tariff, by Order in Council, since January 1st, 1902 ? If so:
1. What articles have been put on the free list ?
' 2. What articles have been reduced in duty ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson) :: 1.	The following articles used as materials in Canadian manufactures have been transferred to the free list by Orders in Council since 1st January, 1902 :
Materials which enter into the construction and form part of cream separators when imported by manufacturers of cream separators to be used in their own factories for the manufacture of cream separators, until otherwise ordered.
Hemp bleaching compound when imported by manufacturers of rope, to be used in their own factories for the manufacture of rope, until otherwise provided.
Silver tubing, when imported by manufacturers of silverware to be used in their own factories in the manufacture of silverware.
Steel for the manufacture of cutlery when imported by manufacturers of cutlery to be used in their own factories in the manufacture of such articles.
Yarn of jute, flax or hemp for the manufacture of towels when imported by the manufacturers of jute, linen or union towels, to be used in their own factories in the manufacture of such articles.
Malleable iron or steel castings, in the rough, for the manufacture of scissors and hand shears, when imported by manufacturers of scissors and hand shears to be used in making such articles in their own factories.
Refined cotton seed oil (edible) for canning fish, until otherwise provided.
Bleached palm oil shea butter when for use ' as materials in Canadian manufactures.
2.	His Excellency the Governor General, by and with the advice of the King's Privy Council for Canada, has been pleased, under the provisions of subsection 3, of section 16 of the Customs Tariff, 1897, to reduce the customs duty on news printing paper in sheets and rolls, including all printing paper valued at not more than two and one-quarter cents per pound, from twenty-five per centum ad valorem to fifteen per centum ad valorem.


INSOLVENT ACT.
Mr. LENNOX asked :: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce an Insolvent Act at the present session of parliament ?
2.	Has it been represented to the_ government that the enactment of a Dominion Insolvent Act would promote trade between Canada and the other parts of the empire ?
3.	Has it been brought to the notice of the government that at a conference of all the boards of trade of the Dominion of Canad", held in Toronto, on the fourth, fifth and sixth of June, 1902, the following resolution was unanimously passed, viz.:-'Whereas trade is seriously handicapped by the difference of the provisions of the law in the different provinces, applying to assignments for the benefits of creditors, by insolvent debtors, and the uncertainty as to the security offered in business transactions, by the absence of an insolvency law in the Dominion. And whereas it is important that the Dominion parliament should enact an insolvency law at the earliest possible date, whereby that confidence which is necessary for the promotion of commerce between the different provinces, and with the outside world, be established;-Resolved, that the Dominion government be requested to assemble one or more commercial representatives of the various provinces and the territories, say in Ottawa, for the purpose of assisting in framing an Act, having for its basis the control and management of insolvent estates by the interested creditors, with the legal expenses reduced to a minimum.'
4.	Have the government availed themselves of the assistance of such commercial representatives of the various provinces ? And if not, why not ?
5.	Have the government replied to the proposal of said resolution ; and if so, in what way, and to what effect ?
6.	What action, if any, have the government taken in the matter ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: It is not the intention of the government to introduce an insolvency bill during the present session of parliament. Numerous representations have been made in the direction indicated in the question, but the government does not consider the time opportune, this session, to introduce such a measure.



POSTMASTER, BLOOMFIELD, N.B.

Mr. FOWLER asked :: Has any change of postmaster been made at the post office at Bloomfield station, King's County, N.B., or is any change now in com-templation 1 If so, who is to be the new incumbent ; and by whose recommendation is the change made, or to be made ? What, if any, charge has been preferred against the postmaster who has lately been removed, or who is to be removed, if the removal is not yet accomplished ? By whom has such charge, if any, been preferred ? Has any investigation been held respecting the said Bloomfield post office ? Was there any petition, signed by residents of

Bloomfield, asking for such changes ? If so, by how many persons was said petition signed ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL/ (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock). The answer to the first question is, a change has been made. To tlie first part of the second question, B. C. Williams. To the latter part of the second question, I would say that it is not usual to state on whose recommendation appointments are made. In answer to the fourth question, there was no charge preferred. 'This answers the fifth and sixth. There was no petition.



INDIAN AGENTS AS GUARDIANS.

Hon. Mr. TISDALE asked :: Are the government agents in charge of Indian reservations, in the province of Ontario, appointed guardians or agents by the government of individual Indians, living on such reservations: or of the money, property or effects of such Indians ? Are such government agents permitted to act as such guardians or agents ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock).: Under the provisions of the Indian Act, Indian agents may be appointed by the Superintendent General, guardians of the persons and property of minor Indians ; but such agents are not ex-officio the guardians or agents of individual Indians.



BANKERS ASSOCIATION'S INSPECTION OF BANKS.

Mr. INGRAM asked :: 1.	What is the nature of the inspection of Canadian chartered banks, by the Canadian Bankers Association ?
2.	At what dates do such inspections take place ?
3.	Does the inspection involve a thorough examination of the assets and liabilities of the various banks, as well as of the securities upon which their loans are held ?
4.	Is the report of the inspector communicated from time to time to the government ?
5.	Do such reports indicate whether the loans are made to Canadian borrowers, or to persons residing or carrying on business in other countries ?
6.	Has the government any information as to the amounts loaned by Canadian banks in the cities^ of New York and Boston, upon the security of stocks of incorporated companies ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Replying to questions 1 to 4, whatever inspection takes place is a matter of voluntary arrangement among the members of the Bankers Association, and the government have nothing to do with it. Replying to questions 5 and 6, the government have no information respecting the loans of Canadian banks beyond what is published in the usual returns in the Canada ' Gazette.'



MANITOBA AND NORTH-WEST VOLUNTEERS-LAND SCRIP.

Mr. SCOTT asked :: Does the government intend to ask parliament to make a grant of land scrip to Manitoba and North-west volunteers who served under arms in South Africa ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden).: The government does not intend to ask parliament to make a grant of land to the North-west volunteers who served under arms.



PROHIBITION OF CIGARETTES.

Mr. ROBERT BICKERDIKE (St. Lawrence, Montreal) moved :: ,
That the object of good government is to promote the general welfare of the people by a careful encouragement and protection of whatever makes for the public good ; and by equally careful discouragement and suppression of whatever tends to the public disadvantage.
That the smoking of cigarettes has been proved by overwhelming testimony to be productive of serious physical and moral injury to young people; imparing health, arresting development, weakening intellectual power, and thus constituting a social and national evil.
The legislation licensing and restricting the sale of cigarettes has not proven sufficient to prevent these evils, which will continue while the public sale of the cause of the mischief is permitted to go on.
That this House is of the opinion, for the reasons hereinbefore set forth, that the right and most effectual legislative remedy for these evils is to be found in the enactment and enforcement of a law prohibiting the importation, manufacture, and sale of cigarettes.
He said :	In rising to move this resolution, which is seconded by the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes), I cannot but feel that the motion would have been much better taken care of if placed in the hands of one of the eloquent members of this House. I shall only lay before the House a few of the many facts that have come into my possession to show the baneful effect of cigarette smoking upon the boys of this country. I believe that if the injury that is being done were known, there would be a unanimous vote of this House in favour of this resolution or of some similar measure. I hope I shall have the majority of this House at my back, for there are very few men who are fathers of boys but have had more or less cause to know the bad effects of this cigarette habit upon boys.
There is no young man or boy but wishes to succeed in life. All want to get along ; all want to better their position. Success in life, in these days of strong competition, means honesty, industry, temperance and economy. A boy or young man who has these, with good health, must succeed ; while, if he lacks them even moderate suc-


George William Fowler: cess will be impossible. I think, Sir, we are all agreed that the boy who is addicted to the cigarette babit cannot succeed in this country unless he has a very strong ' pull ' somewhere, while the boy who is not addicted to that habit does not require any ' pull,'-all he wants is the push, and he succeeds in getting to the front. I have with me certificates from most eminent physicians, throughout the country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and all these documents go to prove that the cigarette habit, with the boys at least, is very, very injurious. I think there is no hon. member in this House who will say nay to that proposition. I would be the last man on the floor to attempt to interfere in any way with the rights of the subject. Once a boy has come to the age of maturity, he has a right to do as he pleases. All X wish to do is to introduce some measure that will protect the boys from this very bad habit of recent years-for, Mr. Speaker, it is only of recent years that it has taken such a hold on the country. The most eminent physicians pronounce cigarettes worse for boys than pipes or cigars, and paper cigarettes worse than all tobacco cigarettes-1 suppose because it absorbs more nicotine. This pernicious habit leads to nervousness, and if continued long enough, results in insanity. Scores of boys, Mr. Speaker, are in the insane asylum in consequence of this habit, and even a greater number have been killed outright.
1 would like to draw the attention of this House to what is being done in the United States. The plague invaded that land many years ago, but it is only recently that it has attained a strong hold in the Dominion. In forty-two states of the Union they have enacted anti-cigarette laws. Many states have passed prohibitory or restrictive laws. In 1899 a wave of education produced by attempts to secure legislation passed over the whole United States, and as a result more than one billion less cigarettes were sold in 1899 than in 1898. That was due not only to the legislation but to the fact that a great many prominent business houses in the United States, and a number of large railways, absolutely refused and still refuse to employ a boy under eighteen years of age who smokes cigarettes. They all recognize that a cigarette fiend is no use in any business establishment. To show what methods have been employed let me read the following :
Two states, Nevada and Montana, have cigarette license laws ; the first is with, and the second without an age limit. One state forbids sale of cigarettes to those under 14 years of age ; another to those under 15. Sixteen states forbid sale under 16 years of age ; one under 17. The Indiana, Iowa, Georgia, North Dakota, South Carolina and Wyoming laws prohibit sale to ' minors '; while Maine, Nebraska, Nevada and Wisconsin put the prohibited limit at 21. Florida rules out the sale altogether, except under certain specified circumstances. Massachusets prohibits sale and manufacture, and Tennessee, which has no manufactories within its borders, caps the legislative climax by putting its bar upon sale and importation.
Now, Sir, if it has been found necessary iu the United States to enact laws in so many states to protect their boys, why should not the Dominion of Canada enact a similar law ? Not only are the legislatures all over the union moving in this matter, but as I said before, a great many large business houses refuse to employ boys who use cigarettes. The cigarette habit is a recent form of intemperance that is proving itself so destructive to bodily strength, mental keenness and moral character, that our educators, our business men, and our public officials, are declaring that their doors must be closed against eigarette boys.
Now, I would like to read to this House a few of the names of institutions, factories and railroads in the United States who will not employ boys who smoke cigarettes. I have several hundred names, but I will only read a few, for I am well aware that a good many hon. members desire to speak on this subject, and I do not wish to take up too much time.
The athletic clubs of the United States; several business colleges; the Union Pacific Railroad; the Omaha schools; Swift & Co., the largest packing house in the world will not employ a boy now who smokes cigarettes ; Marshall Field, dry goods, Chicago ; several life insurance companies; the Lehigh Valley Railroad. Boys who use cigarettes are debarred from the United States army and naval schools. Carson, Pirie & Scott, Chicago, close their doors against cigarette users; so do the Chicago Rock Island and Pacific Railroad, the Central Railroad, Georgia; three high schools in Chicago; Ayer's Sarsparilla Co., Chicago; Wana-maker's, Philadelphia, one of the largest stores in the United States will not allow a single boy to be engaged in their employment if he smokes cigarettes; Morgan & Wright Tire Co., Chicago; The Western Union Telegraph Co., the messenger service; the Burlington Railroad; the United States Weather Bureau; Heath & Milligan; Montgomery Ward & Co., Academy of Northwestern University, Chicago; Telephone Co., Cumberland; the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad; the Pittsburg and AVestern Railroad, the West Superior Railroad, Wisconsin.
All these railroads have found it necessary to instruct their managers that they must no longer employ cigarette smokers. The same may be said of school inspectors. I have letters here from most of the prominent medical men in the Dominion, all condemning the use of cigarettes by boys. I will mention a few of the names. Dr. Isaac Wood of Kingston, Dr. Lambly of Cooksliire, Quebec, Dr. Stewart of Prescott. Dr. Macpherson of Prescott, Dr. James Stewart, lecturer in McGill University and head of the medical staff of the Royal Victoria hospital, Dr. Blackadar, head of the staff of the general hospital. All these medical gentlemen are unanimous in con-

derailing the use of cigarettes. I have letters from nearly one hundred of them to that effect. Last, but not least, I had a communication from the late Dr. Christie, during his lifetime, who was for twenty years an honoured member of this House, and was one of the strongest opponents of the use of cigarettes by boys.
X do not know of any argument that can be urged in favour off this habit, although I presume a number will be urged here this afternoon. The great danger is that the editors of newspapers may take a wrong course on this matter. Heretofore many of the papers have been very generous in commenting editorially in favour of the movement against cigarettes. But now I notice that in some of them are appearing long articles stating that cigarettes are quite harmless, and really nourishing and beneficial. Of course there is no hint that these ai tides are advertisements, and that the Space is paid for, probably by some one interested in the tobacco trust. One of the editors being asked about it, answered: Well, we get higher rates than we do for ordinary advertising matter. I would say also that school inspectors have done much to discourage the cigarette habit among school children. I must not forget to mention that Sir Wm. Hingston, of Montreal, Senator, is one of those who have come out very strongly in favour of this measure. I might mention other distinguished names, but X do not wish to take up too much time.
Now, I will give a few figures taken from the Blue-books of the Department of Inland Revenue. In 1898 there were 80,562,817 cigarettes manufactured in Canada and taken out of bond for consumption; in 1899, there were 101,143,328; in 1900, there were 116,061,522.
Now, I would like to call the attention of the Postmaster General to what is being done by the post office authorities in Chicago :
At a conference of the Chicago post office authorities it was decided to hereafter employ no boy who smokes cigarettes or who is known to have been addicted to the habit.
Heretofore there has been a rule in force that boys employed by the office could not smoke while working, but, believing that smoking has a demoralizing effect, and because of the need of the most intelligent and active boys, it is thought wise to make closer restrictions.
An examination is soon to be held, when 700 youths will enter into competition for position in the post office, and the new order will have no small effect upon so large a number of applicants.
The clause relating to cigarettes says : ' No small boys will be allowed to participate in the examination, since only the best-equipped boys, mentally and physically, are wanted in this service, and under no circumstances wall a boy who smokes cigarettes be employed.' The service referred to is that of special delivery messengers, for which appointments are made from this examination.


Robert Bickerdike: There Is just one more fact that I would like to lay before the House before taking my seat and it is this : It Is a very startling statement and one that perhaps a great many hon. members will have doubt about but It is from a good authority. When I give the name of my authority I am sure that hon. gentlemen will all be satisfied that the statement is a bona fide one. A very startling suggestion was made in the English parliament as to why the United States beat Spain.
Why did the United States beat Spain ? ft has been left, says the * Westminster Gazette,' for Sir Brampton Gurdon, in his speech on the finance Bill, to supply the answer : ' The evil effect of the growing habit among boys of smoking filthy cigarettes could scarcely be exaggerated. Without doubt it was a habit which left the rising generation deteriorated in physique, and the result of such indulgence could be found in the miserable failure of the Spanish forces in their war with the United States.'
I do not tliink it is necessary to say anything more. I have laid the facts before the House and I am sure that a great many hon. members on both sides will stand up for this Bill, and I am sure that all will be proud of their action who cast a vote to exterminate the cigarette habit amongst our young boys. I will now leave the matter in the hands of my seconder, the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes).


Mr. R. HOLMES (West Huron).: In seconding this resolution, Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of yourself and through you the attention of the House to certain facts as bearing upon the question and to supplement, as far as lies in my power, the information that has been given to the House by the hon. member for Montreal, St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike). I think it will be conceded at once that we are endeavouring to deal with an evil that is of growing proportions. We hear the argument advanced everywhere that this is an evil that should be stopped if possible, but the problem of dealing with or restricting the evil is apparently one that seems insurmountable. The various provincial legislatures have recognized the evil to the extent that they have placed restrictions upon the sale of cigarettes or the use of cigarettes up to a certain age, and while that legislation is restrictive to the extent of its powers it does not go far enough in order to cope with the evil because it does not prohibit the actual use of the cigarette. Therefore, we realize the necessity of some more stringent legislation that will put a stop to the evil that is assuming very large and very serious proportions. The mover of the resolution states clearly at the outset that the intention is to reach the young, so far as it is possible to reach those who are of immature years, those who have not attained their full physical development, those upon whom the evil effects of cigarette smoking are perhaps more apparent than they are on people of more mature years. In this

connection a point to be borne in mind is tliat while we are endeavouring to reach the young we can only reach the young by reaching the old. We have no quarrel with those of mature years who smoke cigarettes or use tobacco under other circumstances, but when we are trying to reach the young we must also have legislation in connection with the old. The hon. member for Montreal, St. Lawrence, has quoted some figures from the Inland Revenue Department to show the increased consumption of cigarettes. Let me go a little farther than he went in that connection and show you that there are a great many more cigarettes smoked at present than there were a few years ago. He quoted the figures of 1900, which show.ed that 116,000,000 cigarettes were taken out for consumption in the Dominion of Canada. In 1901 the quantity had gone up to 121,000,000, while in 1902, the last year, it had increased to the enormous number of 134,000,000. In addition to that we find by the trade and navigation returns that, the importation of cigarettes from other countries in 1901 amounted to 4,000,000, while, in 1902, the importation had increased to nearly 8,000,000, which is quite sufficient proof that the use of cigarettes is going on at a very alarming rate.


An hon. MEMBER.: There has been an increase in population.


Robert Holmes: Yes, but the increase in the consumption of cigarettes is greater than the increase in population. It is impossible to say what proportion are consumed by children and what proportion are consumed by adults, but, it must be evident to the most casual observer, to all who use their powers of discernment, even on the streets of Ottawa, if nowhere else, that there is a large number used by children who are below the age limit, and I believe that what is true of Ottawa is true of almost all the towns and cities of the Dominion of Canada, that a large number of children beneath the age limit are making use of cigarettes. To supplement further the information produced by my hon. friend, so far as the evil effects of cigarettes are concerned, I want to quote also a number of authorities overlooked apparently by my hon. friend in his remarks. I contend that the use of cigarettes by children is Injurious. We have not only to quote the opinions, as I will give them later on, of a number of medical authorities thereon, but I have taken the trouble to ask medical men myself since I have been in Ottawa and elsewhere as to the effect of cigarettes on children, and they assure me that their use is very detrimental indeed, detrimental both from the moral and physical standpoint, that it destroys the intellect and prevents the development of their physical nature. If we succeed in establishing the claim that the use of cigarettes is injurious, I contend that it is withm the right and the duty of this House to provide in some form a remedy, because this
House is the custodian of the people s welfare, and is called upon to provide remedies in various forms for evils when they are found to exist. This evil is one that is increasing and to my mind is an evil that is continuing. I want to quote the opinion of a medical man in connection therewith . Dr. Clinton, of San Francisco Board of Education, who has made a special study of the effects of cigarette smoking on the school children of that city, says
A good deal has been said about the evils of this habit, but one-half the truth has never been told; I say calmly and deliberately that I believe, cigarette smoking is as bad a habit for boys as opium smoking. It sends boys into consumption, it gives them enlargement of the heart, and drives them to the insane asylum.
I am not exaggerating, but speaking the truth that every teacher and physician knows.
My hon. friend referred to the opinion of the late Dr. Christie, who was for many years an honoured member of this House, and whose son, I am glad to say, has now succeeded to his seat. The opinion of the late Dr. Christie on this point is as follows :
I believe it is the almost universal opinion of medical men that the cigarette habit is most deleterious to the young, producing physical degredation, and the habit should be denounced in trumpet tones by all who have the welfare of humanity at heart.
Dr. Stewart, who is at the head of McGill College, Montreal, and Dr. Blackader, of the Montreal general hospital, both condemn the use of cigarettes by boys.
Dr. Broughton, of the Leslie E. Iveely Institute, says :
More young men are led to the opium habit by cigarette smoking than by patent medicines, sixty per cent of all males treated at Dwight for opium, morphine or cocaine using, had been smokers of cigarettes.
Dr. Torrence, superintendent of the Illinois State Reformatory, says :
I am sure cigarettes are destroying and making criminals of more beys than are the saloons. Out of 278 boys confined there, 253 are cigarette users.
Mr. Samuel Grigg, a gentleman well known to the members of this House who comes from Western Ontario, as the former proprietor of the Grigg House in London, and who is now engaged in evangelistic work, makes this statement in a letter to the press, which has been published within the last few days :
I have lived to see many boys who were addicted to the cigarette habit, serving terms in the penitentiary ; they have gone from bad boyhood to worse manhood, and crimes of various kinds have been associated with their names. I can honestly say, after a varied experience of 32 years in the liquor business, that the cigarette habit bids fair to become a scourge greater than that for which the drink traffic is responsible.
I presume that those who know Mr. Grigg will admit that he is in a position to speak

with authority upon a question of this kind. Mr. Ferrier, superintendent of the Miinico Industrial School, considers the use of cigarettes by boys the most pernicious habit of the day, and that it is responsible for many criminal acts. He says that boys who habitually indulge in the habit are treading the path that leads to a criminal life. Sir Brampton Gurdon, in a recent speech in the English House of Commons, went so far as to say that the deterioration of the French and Spanish soldier, as evidenced in recent wars, was easily traceable to the habit of cigarette smoking.
The Chicago ' News ' says :
Scores of boys are in the insane asylum from the cigarette habit, and an even greater number are killed outright annually.
Many leading business houses in Canada and the United States announce that they will not employ any youth under the age of 21 who uses cigarettes. I understand that the city council of the city of London, Ont., and the school board of that city have passed resolutions at recent meetings favouring the prohibition of cigarettes. I claim, Mr. Speaker, that the evidence we have quoted is sufficient to show that the cigarette habit is a very injurious one to the youth of the country. We may have differences of opinion on political questions ; we may have differences of opinions on religious questions, and we may have differences of opinion on a variety of other questions, but it seems to me that there should be no difference of opinion as to the evil effects of cigarette smoking on the youth of our land. We are not arguing from the standpoint of those of mature years, but from the standpoint of the bearing of this question on the youth of Canada. The hon. member for Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) also anticipated me in quoting the various States of the American Union which have passed laws of a very restrictive character in regard to cigarettes ; laws that do not allow of their importation or use ; laws that if properly enforced will produce a good effect in limiting the use of cigarettes. I have here the copy of a Bill introduced a short time ago in the Illinois State legislature dealing with this matter, but as I do not know whether the Bill became law or not, I shall not refer to it further.
We are sometimes told, Mr. Speaker, that it is not within the duty of the state to legislate in this direction, but to prove the contrary to be the fact, I shall quote you the action of our friends to the south with regard to legislation of an equally restrictive character to the legislation which we now propose. The United States congress at its recent session passed what is known as the Gillet-Lodge Act, which forbids citizens of the United States to sell either liquor or opium to people in any of the Pacific Islands, having no civilized form of government. We spent a good deal of time yesterday-and I think the time was


Robert Holmes: profitably spent, because it developed a great many eloquent speeches-we spent a good deal of time yesterday in considering a resolution having for its object the alleviation of the wrongs of Ireland, and to-day we can properly spend some time in trying to remedy some of the wrongs of Canada. It may be argued by some, that a law of this kind interferes with personal liberty. That, I admit at once. But I do not consider an argument of that kind worth discussing because the quotations that I have cited with regard to the United States prove that personal liberty is interfered with by legislation. It is not necessary for me to do more than to allude to certain acts which are already on our own statute-books, and which are a direct interference with the personal liberty of some, as indeed all restrictive legislation must necessarily be. We have on the statute-book at the present time laws of a prohibitive character relating to sanitation and the preservation of the public health. They interfere with the personal liberty of the subject in that they do not allow a man to do as he likes with his own property. For the general good and the public well being, restrictive laws of that kind are enacted, and no one thinks of raising the objection that it is an interference with personal liberty. We have a law prohibiting the importation into Canada and the manufacture in Canada of oleomargarine. Some may say that is an interference with the liberty of the subject, and so it is ; but it interferes with individual liberty in order that the great majority of mankind may be benefited by it. We have a law prohibiting the carrying of fire arms. A man may say that he has a perfect right to carry fire arms for his own protection, but in the interest of the public at large the law says that he shall not carry fire arms except under very stringent conditions. And so we have a law on the statute-book prohibiting, except under certain circumstances, the landing of the industrious and economical Chinee, and we have seen recent legislation introduced here raising the tariff against the Chinaman. It is therefore apparent that we interfere in a variety of ways with the individual liberty of the citizen. If undesirable immigrants come to our shores we have a restrictive enactment by which we turn them back, often with great hardship to them, and send them to their own land again. And yet, Sir, we tolerate with i nr eyes open, and we tolerate to a certain extent with our own consent, an evil that is doing more to sap the foundations of and to destroy and to injure the yo l+h of our land than, perhaps, anything else 1 could mention. We may be told, and possibly we will be told in this connection, that in order to provide an effectual remedy against the use of cigarettes, we would also have to prohibit the use of tobacco, because boys will make their own cigarettes, and the evil will continue as great as at present under

the free importation and manufacture. I contend, Sir, in the words of an honoured statesman ; That we ought make it as easy as possible to do right and as hard as possible to do wrong. We know well that if we remove as far as possible the source of the temptation, there is not likely to he the same extended use of cigarettes that there is under the present condition. I am free to admit that the enforcement of the law will be somewhat difficult, and that hoys may still be able to manufacture their own cigarettes, but I do not believe that under the circumstances the evil will be at all comparable in extent to the evil as it exists now. Now, Mr. Speaker, without taking up too much of the time of the House on this question, I want to allude to a matter that is perhaps a little personal. Since the attention of this House of Commons has been called to this question, it has been remarked to myself among others, that if some of the ladies who are behind this legislation were at home attending to their duties, they would be better engaged than they are in promoting this legislation.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Robert Holmes: Some hon. gentleman says ' hear, hear,' but I presume that he means that expression to be taken in a jocular sense. It may be true or it may be untrue, that these estimable ladies would be better engaged at home, but I think, Sir, it will be conceded that when the women of cur land are willing to sacrifice their own comfort in trying to save the boy^ of Canada; when they are willing to do what they can to put a stop to the debasing, demoralizing and destructive habit of cigarette smoking by the youth ; when they are willing to forsake their own interests and undergo various forms of rebuff in order that they may place the youth of our land on a higher moral footing than at present; it will be conceded, I say, that they are worthy of ail commendation, and I for one shall very gladly accord them my commendation. Our effort in this direction is :
To bless, not blight
Our fellows who shall follow
In earth's strife.
The standard we shall raise
Of wrong or right.
For the reasons I have briefly given, and a good many others which I might advance, I have very much pleasure in seconding the resolution before the House. I am not sufficiently sanguine to hope that all the members of this House will be so far convinced either by my eloquence or by the arguments of my hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) as to give it their unanimous support; but I do hope there are sufficient independent members of this House to stand up for the protection of the youth of our land and to do their utmost to secure a law that will prevent the perpetuation of an evil that is doing so much to
undermine the foundations of society for the days that are to come. We are frequently told that we are legislating in this House, not for to-day but for to-morrow, not for the present, but for the future ; that we are aiming to secure enactments which will be in the best interests of mankind, not alone for to-day, but for years to come; and I believe that if I were to ask for a personal expression of opinion from the members of this House, they would admit with me that this evil is one that ought to be grappled with in order that society in the future may, he protected. We are undertaking to grapple with it in this form. It may be insufficient to reach as far as some think it ought to reach; but I am satisfied that if it is placed on the statute-book and a fair attempt is made to carry it out, it will produce a revolution in the habits of the rising generation, and be of great benefit to the world at large in the years to come. I have very much pleasure in seconding the resolution.


Mr. SAMUEL BARKER (Hamilton).: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to occupy the time of the House in going over the various matters referred to by the mover and seconder of the resolution; but I perfectly agree with every statement contained in the first three paragraphs of the resolution. I do not think any language can too strongly picture the evil that is attempted to be struck at by this resolution. Those of us who live in cities or towns in Ontario cannot have failed to see boys not over ten years of age smoking cigarettes, and doing it habitually. I have no doubt that this evil exists to a great extent, and that it is increasing. There can be no question that this evil is largely due to the fact that tobacco in the form of cigarettes can be got very cheaply, which enables these youths to purchase cigarettes when perhaps they could not get cigars or tobacco in some other shape. For this reason it seems to me that the cigarette evil, particularly as it affects boys, is a thing to be especially considered and dealt with. I confess I have some doubt whether the method proposed in this motion will be effective ; but when we consider that for some years other means have been tried in the province of Ontario, such as prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to youths under a certain age, and that these have failed, we are driven to the conclusion that either some such remedy as is now proposed must be adopted, or that we must sit down and let the evil increase. For my part, I do not wish to interfere with the freedom of any person who enjoys a smoke. I do not use tobacco in any form, and I would be very sorry indeed to attempt to interfere with the freedom of those who do. But in view of the great evil that undoubtedly exists as regards boys, and I am told even young girls sometimes use cigarettes, the question is whether the grown-up men should not be willing to confine them-

selves to the use of tobacco in other forms, and give up the use of cigarettes for the benefit of the youths of the country. While I say I have some doubts about the effectiveness of the remedy proposed, still, when I consider that all the provincial efforts have failed, I am prepared to support the motion of the hon. member for the St. Lawrence division (Mr. Bickerdike), until some remedy more likely to be effective is presented to the House.


Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).: Mr. Speaker, the habit of smoking cigarettes has not been in existence in Ontario or in the Dominion of Canada for very many years. I think twenty years will cover the period since it began to be a habit in this country, and the extent to which it is likely to increase can be measured pretty fairly by the gigantic proportions which it has attained up to the present time. I am one of those who do not like, unless it is absolutely necessary, to invoke that drastic measure shown as: prohibition; but. seeing the proportions to which this evil has already increased, and seeing that the measures hitherto adopted have proven to be totally ineffectual, we are face to face with this proposition : If we are opposed to prohibition in this matter, what other effective remedy can we suggest ? Now, after having given the matter some little consideration, though I admit I have not gone very fully into it, and bringing to that consideration a desire to do what is for the best interests of the youth of this country. I see no other alternative for us, if we really desire to put a stop to this great evil, than to adopt the resolution proposed to-day. Usually in this House we represent the free and independent electorate of this Dominion; but to-day I feel that we are representing something better still. In our advocacy of this measure, we are representing the homes of this country, and we are representing a band of devoted and noble women who, though having no direct voice in this House, are endeavouring to do something for the protection of the young men and in some cases the young women of our land. So we may be said on this question to be representing those who are understood individually, and therefore I suppose collectively, to be the ' better half ' of the community. I am glad that the attitude of the House appears to be unanimously favourable to the resolution. I do not know whether we shall have the good fortune to pass it by a unanimous vote ; but seeing that we are to-day dealing with a great moral question, and that these great moral questions will determine, even more than ordinary financial and political questions, what this country shall attain to in the future.
I should be glad indeed, regardless of all those matters which sometimes divide us, if on this great question we should by a unanimous voice give not only the sanction of Mr. BARKER.
the law to this great measure, but the weight of the representative opinion of this House in a strong and unequivocal way.


Mr. T. G. RODDICK (Montreal, St. Antoine).: It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to make any lengthy speech on this occasion because I was not aware that the matter was coming up to-day. Otherwise I should have been prepared with some statistics and other information that might have been of service to the House. We are all indebted to my hon. colleague from Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) for having brought this matter so ably before the House. I quite concur in all that he and the hon. gentleman who seconds this resolution, my hon. friend from West Huron (Mr. Holmes), but I am a little afraid that they are expecting too much. I am a little afraid when they ask for the prohibition of the importation, manufacture and sale of cigarettes that they are going too far. I think that we would do better to follow the example set us in the English House of Commons, where a measure has been introduced, but not yet discussed, dealing with this question. I have in my hand the last edition of the British Medical Journal, which treats of this very Bill, and it may interest this House to know what the British House of Commons contemplate doing in this matter :-
The anti-tobacco and anti-nicotine league of England proposes the following Bill:
No person under the age of 16 years shall smoke or use tobacco in any form and any such person so doing shall be liable to conviction and to a penalty not exceeding ten shillings for each offence. No person shall sell give or supply tobacco in any form to or for the use of any person under the age of 16 years, and any person so doing shall he liable, on a first offence, to a penalty not exceeding 20 shillings, and on a second or subsequent conviction to a penalty not exceeding 40 shillings. And in addition to the foregoing penalty the license, if any, held by such person for the sale of tobacco shall, in the case of a third conviction, become void and such person shall become disqualified for a term of five years from the date of such conviction from holding any such license.
Such a measure would be a very sensible one for us to adopt, but I would make the age limit seventeen instead of sixteen. Up to that age the human frame is being developed and it is in that period that the damage is done by tobacco. After that age we cannot declare, as medical men, that very much harm follows, and we know that if a boy does not smoke up to seventeen or eighteen he will probably not smoke at all. In that way therefore the end we all desire might be reached. I quite agree with all that has fallen from my hon. friend on this subject. Up to the age of seventeen or eighteen, the harm cannot be computed which is done by tobacco, especially to the nervous system. But that great harm is

clone lias been demonstrated time and again in large schools for boys. In Yale university-and I give this as a single illustration-comparisons were made during eight years between smokers and non-smokers. As compared with the smokers the nonsmokers gained twenty-four per cent in weight, thirty-seven per cent in height, forty-two per cent in girth, and 8-36 cubic inches in lung expansion. Other well known investigations have proved that the effect on the mind in the case of boys is very marked. During several months, twenty boys who were known not to use tobacco in any form and twenty known to be cigarette liends, were closely observed by their teacher. The ages of the boys were from ten to seventeen, the average age being a little over fourteen. Of the twenty smokers, twelve have smoked more than a year and some several years. All the twenty used cigarettes and some also used pipes and cigars occasionally. The following effects were noticed in the smokers. Twelve of them had poor memories, and in ten out of the twelve the memory was reported as very poor. Only four had fair memories, and not one of the twenty had a good memory. Twelve were in poor physical condition, six being subject to sick spells and comparatively already physical wrecks. Eight were reported as being in fair condition, but in none was the condition excellent. These are remarkable facts, which have been proved conclusively by medical men and others who observed the boys. I quite agree that if the age limit could be made seventeen or eighteen we would be doing as much as it is possible to do. It is known that a cigarette properly made is not so injurious after all to grown persons. Properly made, it is the purest form in which to use tobacco. That is a statement I am obliged to make because it is well known and established. I have nothing further to say. I shall support the measure with great pleasure but hope that when this resolution be given effect to in form of a Bill, the modifications I suggest will be made.


Mr. H. J. LOGAN (Cumberland).: I agree with the hon. member for St. Antoine Division of Montreal (Mr. Roddick) that if we could modify this motion, it could be so amended as to meet with the unanimous acceptance. In many of the statements made in support of this motion, I entirely agree. No one can deny that the smoking of cigarettes has been proven by overwhelming evidence to be a productive source of serious physical and moral injury. Every one knows that it impairs the health, arrests the development, weakens the intellectual power and thus constitutes a social and national evil. That is, I think, the unanimous opinion of this House. But I desire to pall to your attention, Sir, that we cannot amend 27
this motion as the hon. gentleman who last spoke (Mr. Roddick) has suggested we should do. We must adopt it in its entirety, and vote in favour of the prohibition of the manufacture, sale and importation of cigarettes. To those of us who have boys this is a serious matter. I do not think that any one can exaggerate the evil effects of cigarettes upon a growing boy. We see every day boy cigarette smokers with that deathly cigarette look. Cigarettes have been aptly termed the coffin nails for boys. But although I agree in all that has been said regarding the evil effects of cigarette smoking and although I desire as much as any one else to stop the smoking of cigarettes by the boys and girls of this country, yet I am of the opinion that this is not the proper place in which to deal with the question but that it should more properly be dealt with by a local legislature. In Nova Scotia, chapter 119 of the revised statutes of that province, provides as follows (and I would like to call the attention of the House to the great stringency of this law :
1.	Any person who sells, gives or causes to be sold or given, any cigars, cigarettes, smoking or chewing tobacco, snuff, or any other form or preparation of tobacco or opium for smoking, to any person, having reasonable cause to believe such person to be under the age of sixteen years, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty dollars ; and in default of payment of such penalty, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding thirty days.
2.	Any person who,-
(a)	Accepts any money or other valuable consideration to act as the agent of any person under sixteen years of age, in procuring for such person any cigars, cigarettes, smoking or chewing tobacco or snuff, or any other form or preparation of tobacco or opium for smoking or chewing, or
(b)	Supplies to any person under sixteen years of age any cigars, cigarettes, smoking or chewing tobacco or any other form or preparation of tobacco or opium, for smoking or chewing, on the promise of any money or other valuable consideration, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty dollars, and in default of payment of such penalty, to be imprisoned for any term not exceding thirty days.
And our statute goes even further than that, for it applies even to the boy himself, the buyer of the cigarette. By sec. 3 it is enacted :
Any person under sixteen years of age who has in his possession, or smokes- or in any way uses cigars, cigarettes, smoking or chewing tobacco or snuff, or any other form or preparation of tobacco or opium, shall be liable to a penalty not exceding five dollars, or to Imprisonment for any period not exceeding seven days, and in default of payment of the money penalty to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding seven days.
That is the law upon the statute-book of that province. Yet, we ought to be ashamed to say that law is almost a dead letter at the present day.


Robert Holmes: AVill my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) allow me to aslc him a question 1


Hance James Logan: Yes.


Robert Holmes: Has the province of Nova Scotia or any other province the power to prohibit the manufacture or Importation ?


Hance James Logan: It has no power to prohibit the sale of cigarettes completely. My hon. friend from Huron (Mr. Holmes) says that he wishes this to apply only to the boys. The mover of the resolution (Mr. Bickerdike) tells us that at maturity a man can do as he likes, but this resolution is not intended to apply to those who have reached maturity; what he seeks is a regulation of the traffic. If it is not to apply to those who have reached maturity the most we can do in order to accomplish the good end sought is to regulate the sale of cigarettes. But this is already done by the province of Nova Scotia. Yet, although this law has been upon the statute-books for ten years, it is almost a dead letter law at this day. I would rather a son of mine should smoke cigarettes than that he should lose respect for the laws of our country. By multiplying these legal enactments, we are likely to increase the number of laws that are not respected, that are broken every day and every hour of the day. I am told that in the province of Quebec also they have stringent legislation on this subject. I come now to the province of Ontario. By chapter 261 of the statutes of this province, it is enacted :
Any person who either directly or indirectly sells or gives or furnishes to a minor under eighteen years of age, cigarettes, cigars, or tobacco in any form, shall on summary conviction thereof before a justice of the peace be subject to a penalty of not less than $10 nor more than $50 with or without costs of prosecution or to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding thirty days, or to both fine with or without costs, and imprisonment to the said amount and for the said term, in the discretion of the convicting magistrate.
What more legislation do we need for the province of Ontario, what more stringent law could my hon. friend from West Huron desire than chapter 261 of the statutes of his own province, which imposes not only a fine, but imprisonment, and not only that but a fine and imprisonment with hard labour. It further provides :
And in case of a fine, or a fine and costs being awarded and of the same not being upon conviction forthwith paid, the justice may commit the offender to the common jail, there to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding thirty days unless the fine and costs are sooner paid.
And one of the sections, which provides for the easier working of the law, says :
A person who appears to the magistrate to be under eighteen years of age, shall be presumed to be under that age, unless it is shown by evidence that he is in fact over that age.


Hance James Logan: -giving the burden of proof in favour of the prosecutor of the law. Now, I believe, with others who have spoken this afternoon, that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble band of women who are endeavouring to purify the morals of the boys and girls of our land. I am not opposing the work of these ladies at all. But I speak in my own private capacity, when I say, that while they and I are working towards the same end, in my humble opinion they are upon the wrong track. We should endeavour to restrict the sale by prohibiting the sales to minors. By endeavouring to prohibit the importation, manufacture and sale of cigarettes in Canada we are endeavouring to put upon the statute-book a law that will be a dead letter and that will increase disrespect for the law throughout the length and breadth of the land. I do not desire to take up further time. I repeat that I think cigarettes are poisonous and dangerous to boys and should not be allowed to lie sold to boys, and we have on the statute-books of the provinces laws Which prohibit that sale, under penalty of fine or even im-piisonment with hard labour against any man or woman who sells cigarettes to the boys of our land.


Mr. SPROULE.: On what ground does the hon. gentleman contend that this motion cannot be amended ?


Hance James Logan: I think it is a matter for the provincial legislatures and does not come within the purview of this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the provinces have not the right to prohibit the manufacture or importation. It is only this parliament that can control the importation.


Hance James Logan: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) desires to substitute another motion, he can count on my support, if he seeks to prevent the sale to boys.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR (South Leeds).: Unlike my hon. friend (Mr. Logan), who has just resumed his seat, I have no boys. Therefore, it might be said that I have not much interest in the question. But I have a great interest in the boys of our country, because from the ranks of these boys must soon be filled the places in this House and all the places now held by men in this country in the professions, the pulpit, and everywhere else. Therefore, I think every person should take a lively interest in the boys of to-day, whether they have boys of their own or not. It seems to me that the logic of my hon. friend (Mr. Logan) is very bad. He said he would rather see his boys smoke cigarettes than lose respect for the laws of our country, and he quotes and advocates the statute of his own province of Nova Scotia, which, he says, has been on the statute-book for ten years and is practically a dead letter. The same is true in the province of Ontario-though the law is on the statute-book it is not respected by the boy.

But the resolution of my hon. friend is not like the law of the province. I am not a lawyer, of course, but I understand that to this parliament is relegated the power of dealing with matters affecting trade and commerce. And so it is this parliament and this parliament only that can pass a law to prohibit the manufacture and importation of cigarettes. If a law is passed by this parliament it- has to be respected, because it will be enforced by the customs and excise departments. There will be no more importation and no more manufacture, then tlie boys of this country will have to quit smoking cigarettes. My hon. friend refers to the prohibition of tobacco. The resolution does not call for the prohibition of tobacco at all, but it calls for the prohibition of the manufacture and sale, which is in my opinion the only effective way of dealing with this evil. I think hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House, in the Interests of the boys of this country, should unite in placing upon our statute-book a law prohibiting the importation, manufacture and sale of cigarettes in Canada. In doing so we will render to the boys of this country one of the greatest benefits that we can bestow upon them.


Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the resolution moved by the hon. member for the St. Lawrence division, Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) is not acceptable. Such as it stands, it is undoubtedly within the purview of this parliament, but it is not logical. It is first stated in the resolution that tlie fact of smoking cigarettes is injurious to the health of children-and in the same breath it asks this House to enact a law prohibiting the use of cigarettes, not only by children, but by grown up men.
This is clearly shown by the resolution which concludes as follows :
That this House is of the opinion, for the reasons hereinbefore set forth, that the right and most effectual legislative remedy for these evils is to be found in the enactment and enforcement of a law prohibiting the importation, manufacture and sale of cigarettes.
For many years past, anti-cigarette laws have been passed by several legislatures, prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to minors. I think it is quite evident that this House cannot be called upon to enact a similar law. On the other hand, we have heard it stated that those laws are a dead letter today. That such laws should have remained a dead letter, is no wonder, seeing that any legislature which interferes with the liberty of the subject never meets with popular favour.
We have proof of what I say in the many restrictive laws put on the statute-books of legislatures, which are not enforced.
Those laws are almost always evaded. A similar agitation arose a few years ago over 27 i
the question of the prohibition of intoxicating liquors. Because a few people are addicted to the habit of drinking, attempts were then made to prohibit the general use of liquors. In this case again, we are asked to enact a law which would result in depriving the immense majority of the community of the use of anything which is undoubtedly lawful.
Mr. ,T. BUREAU (Three Rivers and St. Maurice). I think this resolution is rather sweeping. We all admit that the smoking of cigarettes by boys in our country is a great evil. But for my part I am not sure whether the evil exists only in the manufactured cigarette or in the cigarette that the boy makes for himself. I understand that the resolution of my) hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) aims at preventing the importation, manufacture and sale of cigarettes. Now if we want to do away with the evil of cigarette smoking by boys, it seems to me that we ought to adopt a suggestion which has just been made of prohibiting the use of cigarettes by boys under 17 years of age. Is this the right way to proceed ? I am inclined to think that the boys will smoke fewer cigarettes when they have to go to a tobacco store and give a dime or a nickle to buy a package of cigarettes, than they will when they are in the habit of rolling up the tobacco in paper and making the cigarettes themselves. I think under the circumstances it would be better, as stated by my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan), to introduce into the Criminal Code, or somewhere else, a law making it a crime for boys under 17 years of age to smoke cigarettes. I do not believe that the proposed prohibition of the importation and manufacture of cigarettes will attain the object sought. Of what use will it be to prevent the importation of cigarettes 1 The cigarette that the boy makes himself is not imported, is not manufactured, and it is not sold by any merchant. I think the resolution ought to be amended so that we can attain the object sought by some other means than a sweeping prohibition, which in my opinion, would make matters worse than before. We have seen the results of a prohibitory law in respect to liquor. We have laws now forbidding the sale of liquor to boys under 18 in our province, and it is a crime for a hotel keeper to sell liquor to a minor. Why not make a similar law in respect to cigarettes, if we desire to stop cigarette smoking by boys ?


Mr. C. B. HEYD (South Brant).: I would like to ask some one who has made a study of this question whether the deleterious effects of cigarette smoking are brought about by the tobacco itself that is used in their manufacture, or by the drugs that are introduced to make the cigarettes more enticing. Now if these effects are brought


about by tbe drugs and not by tbe tobacco, could not the object we are trying to attain be secured by preventing the importation, manufacture and use of cigarettes in which a drug is used either in the tobacco or in the paper ?


Mr. A. BRODER (Dundas).: This matter is all in a nut shell. We do not want to have an analyst in every village to find out whether a cigarette is made with pure or adulterated tobacco. It is no matter to an old smoker whether cigarettes are prohibited or not, because as a rule lie does not use them. I think there is no question but that boys are injured by the use of cigarettes. I doubt if there is a man in this House who has not observed in every village small boys on the street smoking cigarettes in tne evening, boys from 10 up to 14 years of age. Now we have a law on the statute-book in Ontario that is evaded by the older boy over 18 years of age buying cigarettes and giving them to the younger boy. The trader sells them to the older boy to whom the law permits him to sell, and the latter goes out on the street and divides up with the younger boy, who has perhaps helped him to the cash to buy the cigarettes. Then there is the boy who is under better home influences, whose father and mother try to keep him away from the evil; he meets a boy on the street who is not under good influences, and the latter gives him a cigarette. That is going on all over this country. Now the question is, if there is any hardship at all suffered by the older portion of the community, whether it is not worth their while to suffer that inconvenience in the interest of the boys of the country. No one who observes what is going on but must have noticed the effect of smoking cigarettes upon young lads who are using them. Now, perhaps there is no part of the community which will suffer from a prohibition of the importation than those frontier towns along the line of the United States where, if such a law is put upon the statute-book, cigarettes will be brought in from the villages on the other side of the line, and our own frontier villages will continue to suffer more or less in that respect. It seems to me that it is the sense of this House that it is an evil that should be dealt with, and if so the sooner it is dealt with the less hardship there will be to all concerned. I am not a constitutional lawyer, and I hope I never will be, in the interest of the country, but. I think most common sense men cannot fail to come to the conclusion that this parliament has the right to deal with this subject. We can prohibit the manufacture, we can prohibit the importation and we can prohibit the sale of what we consider detrimental to the public generally.


Mr. C. E. KAULBACH (Lunenburg).: Mr. Speaker, I venture to say that a great deal of credit is due to the hon. mover and seconder of this motion in bringing forward Mr. HEYD.
a matter which is so important to the welfare of the young of this Dominion. The habit of cigarette smoking has been a growing evil for a number of years. It is a painful sight to see the youth of our country under the age of twenty-one years smoking cigarettes ; nay, tobacco in any form. I cannot agree with my hon. friend from Montreal, St. Antoine, (Mr. Roddick) when he suggests that we should make the age limit seventeen. I say make the age limit twenty-one. A young man has not arrived at the age of ripe young manhood until he reaches the age of twenty-one. Why it should be seventeen, I cannot understand. If a youth is affected by use of tobacco at the age of seventeen by the impurities that arise from the tobacco imbued or infused into the system, I conceive, that the same evil exists, perhaps not to the same extent, until he arrives at the age of twenty-one, and I still go farther and say that it even continues beyond the age of twenty-one. In fact, a young man does not possess strong moral courage until he arrives at the age of twenty-one.
That the smoking of cigarettes has been proved by overwhelming testimony to be productive of serious physical and moral injury to young people; -impairing health, arresting development, weakening intellectual power, and thus constituting a social and national evil

*
As this is indisputable, legislation should be enacted to prohibit the importation, sale and use of cigarettes is a suggestion which I heartily endorse. I conceive, Mr. Speaker, that it is within the purview of this Dominion to enact prohibitive measures and not for the legislatures of the respective provinces to assume this action. We have an Act upon the statute-books of the province of Nova Scotia, as has been shown by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan), we have another in the province of Ontario and another in the province of Quebec. But, these Acts are completely ignored. In my own town may be seen boys who have scarcely arrived at the age of ten years smoking cigarettes. Nay, I will go farther and say that I have seen them smoking vile pipes and as such are offenders, and open to the most stringent measures that the law can possibly enact. I believe that the remark which fell from the lips of the last speaker (Mr. Broder) in respect to the manufacture of cigarettes, should be carefully considered. The intention of the mover and seconder of this motion is that the manufacture of cigarettes should be prohibited in this country, but a youth may purchase his tobacco in any form he pleases, use any kind of paper he pleases and manufacture his own cigarette. The motion should go further and say that it should be part of the Criminal Code of this country that any youth who is caught in the act of smoking a cigarette, whether made by himself or otherwise, should suffer the penalty of
\

the law, and I would urge this amendment upon the mover and seconder of this motion. Perhaps I take a stronger view than many lion, gentlemen here when X say thati the use of cigarettes is only an introduction to many other evils that human nature is heir to, and that if the suppression of the use of the cigarette was strictly carried out I believe that the other vices to which youths are liable and that human nature is subject to would be very quickly removed. I would strongly support the age limit of twenty-one instead of seventeen as my hon. friend (Mr. Roddick) suggests.


Mr. G. STEPHENS (Kent, Ontario).: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak on this question, but in view of the great importance which it is to the people of this country, not only at the present time but in the future to our young men who are growing up, I felt that I would not be doing my duty to the riding I have the honour to represent did I not stand up and say something In favour of this resolution. X am sure that any hon. member of this House who goes up' and down the streets in any town or city ip this country can see the evil effect which cigarette smoking lias upon our boys, and I believe that there is no other way of stopping the evil unless the importation, sale and manufacture of cigarettes are prohibited. I therefore shall have much pleasure in supporting this resolution and I will conclude by expressing the hope that the government may find some way of stopping what is tiecoming a great evil amongst the boys of this country.


Hon.   WM@: ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I think, Mr. Speaker, that all the representatives of the people in this House agree that this is a growing evil. It is an evil that was unknown in my early days, and I know from personal observation in Halifax that it is an evil that is increasing more and more every year. Now, the question is this : Are the parents showing the best example to their children In the use of tobacco in any shape or form ? I give myself the credit of saying that I never used tobacco and if I had my way there would not be any person in this world that would use it. But, however, I am not vain enough to think that that reform will be carried out in this age. Now, w7e have this evil. This evil is increasing and this House is the -only body that can deal with the question according to the resolution in its present shape. Therefore, let us not shirk the responsibility of doing what we can in the interest of the children that are going to be the men of Canada in a short time. If this evil is allowed to continue there will be very few that will grow to the age of manhood. They will not be men either in mind or in body, if they continue the practice of using, tobacco in any shape or form under a certain age, because we cannot confine the evil of tobacco to cigarettes alone. The use of tobacco by our young boys must
be injurious. Therefore I heartily endorse the resolution that has been submitted to this House and I would like that the House should assume the responsibility of dealing with it in a strong and vigorous manner.
I do not intend to say more, only that when I was young I used to repeat something like this :
Tobacco is a stinking weed ; it was the devil that sowed the seed
It drains your purse ; it stains your clothes
And makes a- chimney of your nose.


Hon. J. I. TARTE (St. Mary's, Montreal).: There is no doubt whatever that tobacco and liquor have caused a great deal of evil. I agree with the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Ross) that we should start by giving good example ourselves. If grown up people, like members of - parliament, would smoke a little less than they do, perhaps our young people would not smoke so much. Be that as it may, I have never believed in coercion. I do not think that coercion has ever cured any moral evil. My hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Bicker-dike) asks us to prevent the smoking of cigarettes, but only a week ago I read in the ' Lancet,' one of the most important and influential medical newspapers in the world, that cigarettes are not quite as1 harmful as cigars. It would follow then, that if we ask that cigarettes be not manufactured or sold, cigars should be prohibited at the same time,; and tobacco in all shapes and forms. This resolution would not go far enough, so far as I am personally concerned, but I shall not deal with that aspect of the case at all. I do not believe in prohibition of that kind. Let us regulate the smoking of cigarettes and of cigars and of tobacco and let us regulate the sale of liquor. Prohibition has not been very popular with us in Quebec. Not because we drink more than the people of the other provinces, but because we believe in freedom.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: If better education were given in the schools, if on the walls of the schools there were photographs showing the young generation the great evils of liquor and tobacco, it would go a great deal further to remedy the evil than any law7 we can pass here. Let us educate our young generation in the proper way, but don't let us enact law's which have proved a failure elsewhere. The prohibition of liquor has proved to be a failure almost everywhere it has been enacted, and the prohibition of the manufacture and importation of cigarettes would prove a failure and a dead failure. Any man of experience w'ill agree with me on that. I do not speak from any interested motives on this question. I have never smoked, thank God ; I am trying to give good example, and I hope to die without smoking.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: You'll smoke when you die.

lion. Mr. TARTE. Well, it will not make me less immortal than I hope to be. These are the views which I entertain on questions of this kind. It seems to me that a law prohibiting the importation and manufacture of cigarettes would be a failure and if such a law be enacted, then it should be extended to tobacco of all kinds ; a thing which I believe, is out of the question.


Mr.   T.@: 8. SPROULE (East Grey). I am heartily in accord with the resolution, although I am forced to believe that such legislation does not always accomplish the end aimed at. I can well believe that it is injurious both morally and physically that either boys or adults should smoke cigarettes. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) told us that he read in the ' Lancet ' that cigars were worse than cigarettes. Prom the information I have that is not correct, because the cigarettes are saturated with stramonium and other narcotics which makes them more injurious in their effect than if they were made from tobacco alone, and cigars are usually manufactured out of tobacco alone. I hold, that provided you are able to prevent boys from smoking cigarettes up to the time of their majority, the danger would not be so great, and the best way to insure that is to make it more difficult to purchase cigarettes. If men take to the use of cigarettes in their mature years they are responsible for it and the evil will be confined to themselves alone. But when boys acquire the habit in their youth, it gets fixed and they are not able to give it up afterwards. I think it would be in the interest of the rising generation that we should prevent this evil from contaminating them. As that can only be done through this parliament, which controls importation and manufacture, I am in favour of the resolution. Although the provincial parliaments may pass laws to make it illegal to sell to a minor, still while it is easy for young boys to obtain cigarettes because of the freedom with which they are distributed throughout the country, the provincial law cannot be very well enforced. I am in favour of this resolution, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Peter Macdonald, East Huron).: I am in favour of this resolution. I believe that if it is adopted by this House, and if a law is founded upon it, it will be one of the best laws that can possibly be conceived for the preservation of the young. I do not think that the tobacco contained in the cigarettes is more injurious than tobacco used in the pipe or the cigar, but I am informed upon good authority, that the paper in which the tobacco is rolled, contains ingredients which are injurious to the smoker. I have been informed that the cigarette paper is immersed in some solution of morphine which gives to the smoker a delightful sensation. and leads him from point to point until be becomes addicted to the cigarette Mr. CASGRAIN.
habit. I am told also that the inhalation of the smoke creates a sensation such as opium would create, and therefore that it engenders in the young a desire to use it which it is almost impossible to restrain. Therefore, I think it would be wisdom on the part of the House first to pass the resolution, and then pass a law founded on that resolution. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) says that he believes in freedom. So do I ; but as the poet says :
Freedom properly understood ; is a universal license to do good.
Too much freedom is almost as bad as tyranny. What we want to do is to keep our boys free from the temptations which are now thrown in their way, and if we do that there will be no tyranny about it. I trust that this motion will result in a Bill prohibiting the importation and manufacture of cigarettes.


Mr. W. R. BROCK (Centre Toronto).: I merely rise to call the attention of the House to what is going on in this country, and in many other countries at the present time. That is, we are removing from the proper sphere the care of our children and the care of the morals of this country. I contend that the proper places in which to inculcate right principles into the minds of our children are the homes of the country.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Hear, hear ; and the schools.


William Rees Brock: More and more we have of late been throwing upon the legislatures and the courts those duties that should be attended to in our own homes. We are educating the children of this country free ; we are supplying them with books free ; we are throwing largely upon our churches the primary teaching of religion which it is the duty of every father and mother to give to their children. How often, when children go astray, do we find fathers and mothers looking to the laws to have them kept in the proper paths, instead of impressing upon their children in their own homes what their duties are. Why, Sir, in this country it is quite the exception to find religious instruction given to children in their homes. That is left entirely either to the churches or the Sunday schools. Fathers and mothers are neglecting it, because other means are provided ; and if you are going to pass laws of the kind proposed, the result will be that the children will be left entirely to the law, and parents will not exercise any influence over them. I would strongly urge that more attention be paid to the morals of children in their own homes, and that in the event of children going astray, their parents should be fined. As it is at present, children who smoke cigarettes are brought before a police magistrate and he punishes them, as well as the person who has sold the cigarettes if he can be got at ; but the sale is usually done

in such a way that it is almost impossible to get at these people. I think this discussion will have done good if it directs the attention of parents to the importance of looking after the religious and moral instruction of their children in their own homes.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion that has taken place on this somewhat important question. I would have preferred that the discussion had been even more general than it has been, because this is a question upon which the government itself has no policy to offer to the House, but desires to be guided by the sense of the House representing the community. In view of the discussion which has taken place, in view especially of the opinion which has been given to us by some gentlemen who are authorities on this subject, it seems to be undeniable that the use of cigarettes by young boys is very injurious. The same remark would apply, so far as I can see, to the use of tobacco in any form ; and for my part I am ready to believe that the use of tobacco, whether in the form of cigarettes or cigars or the pipe, is extremely injurious to young children and to youths in adolescence, whereas in the case of grown-up people, it seems to be a very innocent pleasure,- if indeed it is a pleasure-it is not so to everybody. If the use of tobacco is an innocent amusement to grown-up people, I do not think they should be debarred from indulging in it by those who do not relish it. The point taken by the bon. member for St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) seems to me to be conclusive. The object of this resolution is simply to make it impossible for young boys to use cigarettes ; and a very drastic remedy is proposed, that is, that we should prevent the manufacture and sale of cigarettes. Of course, that would be a very effective way of protecting the youth of the country from a dangerous amusement ; but at the same time it would prevent men who derive no injury frpm it from indulging in that amusement. I agree with a great deal that has been said, and I agree with everything that has been said by my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Brock) to the effect that the best way to cure these evils is to attend more to domestic education and less to legislation. If we attempt, by way of restrictive legislation, to prohibit tilings which in themselves are not harmful, we may place upon the statute-book a class of legislation which will not be respected by the community. There are at present on the statute-books of the several provinces laws which, if observed, are sufficient to meet the evil in question ; but we are told that these laws are not observed. Well, if these laws are not observed, is it to be expected that a more drastic law will be observed ? 1 see boys smoking cigarettes in the streets every day, and it is always
painful to me to see young children of ten or twelve years of age violating the law in this way, injuring their constitutions and impairing their mental powers ; but I do not turn informer and have them prosecuted. If I saw a boy committing a theft, I would not hesitate to call in a policeman to arrest him, and everybody would do the same. But if we put on the statute-book a more drastic measure on this subject than we have at present, I do not think we shall be doing any more to cure the evil, but we shall have mply added one more to those offensive laws which are enacted but not enforced. This is an open question, and everybody can vote upon the resolution as he likes ; but in my opinion the best way to cure the evil in question is the way indicated by my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Brock).
House divided on the resolution.
YEAS : Messieurs
Alcorn,
Avery,
Barker,
Beitli,
Bell,
Bennett,
Bicker dike.
Blain,
Boyd.
Broder.
Brown,
Bruce,
Calvert,
Calvin,
Campbell,
Cargill,
Charlton,
Christie,
Clancy,
Clare,
Clarke,
Cochrane,
Copp,
Costigan,
Douglas.
Earle,
Emmerson,
Erb,
Fielding,
Fitzpatrick,
Fowler,
Fraser,
Gibson,
Gould,
Grant,
Hackett,
Holmes,
Hughes (Victoria), Hyman,
Ingram,
Johnston (Cardwell), Johnston (Lambton), Kaulbach,
Kemn,
Kidd,
Lancaster,
Lang,
LaRivifere.
Lavell,
LeBlanc,
Lefurgey,
Lennox,
Lewis,
Lovell,
Loy,
Macdonald,
MacKinnon,
Maclaren (Huntingdon), MacLaren (Perth), Macpherson,
McColl,
McCormick,
McEwen,
McGowan,
McGugan,
McIntosh,
Marcil (Bonaventure), Matheson,
Meigs,
Monk,
Morin,
Morrison,
Mulock (Sir William), Pope,
Proulx,
Reid (Grenville),
Reid (Restigouche), Richardson,
Robinson (Elgin), Roche (Halifax),
Roche (Marquette), Roddick,
Rosamond,
Ross (Ontario),
Ross (Victoria, N.S.), Russell,
Scott,
Sherritt,
Smith (Vancouver), Sproule,
Stephens,
Stewart,
Sutherland (Essex), Talbot,
Taylor,
Thompson (Haldimand and Monck),
Tobin,
Tolton,
Turcot,
Turgeon,
Vrooman,
Wilmot,
Wright-103.

NAYS :
Messieurs
Angers,
Archambault,
Bazinet,
Beiand,
Belcourt,
Bernier,
Borden (Sir Frederick), Brock,
Bureau,
Carbonneau,
Carroll,
Casgrain,
Champagne,
Cowan,
.Demers (Levis), Demers (St. John), Dugas,
Ethier,
Fori ier,
Haggart,
Harwood,
Heyd,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Lavergne.
Resolution agreed
Leonard,
Logan,
MeCool,
Mclsaac,
McLennan,
Malouin,
Marcil (Bagot), Martineau,
May rand,
Mignault,
Monet,
Murray,
Parmelee,
Porter,
Prefontaine.
Puttee,
Riley,
Ross (Yukon), Rousseau,
Seagram,
Sutherland (Oxford), Tarte,
Tisdale,
Ward.-48.
to.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Might I ask the right hon. the First Minister when he intends to carry out these instructions from the House?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I shall have to give up smoking.



AUTOMATIC GRAIN WEIGHERS IN NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES.

Mr.  D. A.@: STEWART (Lisgar) moved 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 the standard grain-weigher manufactured by the Globe Manufacturing Company of Winnipeg.
He said : I rise to move this motion in the interests of the tlireshermen of Manitoba and the North-west Territories, who are suffering under this great hardship of not being able to collect in the courts any account which they may have against a customer for work done. The present system of meeting the conditions of the west has been the result of gradual evolution. The thresherman began with a bushel measure which he emptied into his bags. The low bagger was then invented, to which the thresherman attached his bags, and these bags were filled automatically. From the low bagger, the high bagger was developed. The grain is elevated to a height of about 18 feet from the ground, weighed at the top of his high bagger, and thence loaded into wagons or bags. In Manitoba and the Territories the thresherman is paid accord-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.	.
ing to the result of his day's threshing, but in Ontario I believe lie is still paid, as was the system 24 years ago when I was in that province, by the day. In the province the charges per day run from $3 to $10, according to the size of this outfit, and it makes no difference whether the thresherman threshes 500 or 1,000 bushels in a day, his pay is the same. The Ontario thresherman only furnishes a crew of three men whereas the Manitoba thresherman finds all the hands necessary for the engine and threshing. His expenses per day will run from $32 to $41, and if he engages the neces-. sary teams for stook threshing, his expenses wili run from $68 to $81. This amount of wages he has to lose if he is dealing with a dishonest customer who refuses to pay. In Ontario, the threshing accounts are small compared with those in Manitoba. In Manitoba and the Territories anything below $150 is a small account, $200 is a fair account, and the accounts run as high as $700, $800 and $1,000. A threshing outfit costs from $2,000 to $4,000. and is usually payable in three instalments. You can, therefore, see that it is a very serious matter for a western thresherman, if he be unable to collect two or three of his accounts. The standard grain weigher manufactured by the Globe Company of Winnipeg gives satisfactory results, and the fact that there is a demand for that kind of a machine all through the west shows that they are a necessity for the handling of the crop. In all cases, where I have made inquiries, the farmers have invariably told me that they were satisfied with the weights they receive from these machines. It has a device for estimating the value of the job and is not used for buying or selling grain. To show you the amount of money invested in threshing machines in Manitoba and the Territories, let me give you a few figures. In 1902, there were S00 used in the Territories and 2,000 in Manitoba. These outfits would run in value from $2,000 to $4,000. Take an average of $3,000 as the value of an outfit, and you will find that the large sum of $8,400,000 is invested in this machinery in our Northwest. The threshing accounts in Manitoba in 1901 were made on the following basis : 41 cents per bushel for wheat; 3 cents for oats, and 3 cents for barley; and the total amounted to $3,116,875. In 1902, the threshing account for the crop, based on the last revised returns, would amount to $4,292,383. In the Territories, for 1902. the amount would be $1,051,521, or over $5,000,000 in both cases, not one dollar of which can be collected in court. I have brought this question before the House and the government in the hopes that they will advance with the times and that this government will devise some legislation which will give the thresherman. who is doing his best to bring the grain from the great fields of the west into the bins of the granary of the empire, the justice to which lie is entitled and of which he stands greatly in need.


Mr. X. BOYD (Macdonald).: I wonld just remind the House that this is not a new question here. Last session, and, I think, the session preceding it, this matter was brought to the attention of the Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier). It was pointed out to that hon. gentleman that this was a matter of very great importance to the people of Manitoba and the North-west Territories. And, as has been shown by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Stewart) it is a matter of great moment indeed that men may refuse, legally, under an Act of the government, to pay bills ranging from $100 to $1,000-and all because the department seem to think the matter so small as to be unworthy the attention which some of us hold that it should receive. We were promised last year by the Minister of Inland Revenue that something should be done. He took a number of members of Manitoba and the North-west Territories to his department and exhibited a machine which we believed, and which he seemed to think would meet the emergencies of the case. I understand that a report has been handed in to the minister by an officer of the Crown to the effect that this machine met the conditions imposed by the department and that it was accepted for verification. Since that time, a gentleman has been brought into the department, from Montreal, taken out of some scale factory there, part blacksmith, part scale manufacturer, and placed over the heads of five or six other men equally as good as he, and better prepared scientifically, better experienced in many ways. That gentleman has been placed over the heads of others, and, for reasons not yet explained to any person who has made inquiries, he has seen fit to discard this weighing machine that had been accepted by an officer of the Crown before. And so the matter stands at the present time. But, of course, it is a trifling matter, a matter of very little importance-to the minister who sits quietly by and permits his officers to do as they please. But it is a most important matter to the people of Manitoba and the Northwest Territory. I read to the House last session, a case in which a man came to court and refused to pay. If we do not resort to the old busheller, with which twenty men would not take away the grain from the machines of the present day, a man cannot collect his accounts. Not a dollar can be legally collected for all the threshing done in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories to-day. If there were not a special weighing machine already in use, if it were not a fact that an Order in Council could be passed any day to procure the same, there might' be some reason for allowing this inconvenience to continue. If the minister would bestir himself sufficiently to go to Council with an order-which 1 am sure would be passed at once-authorizing these special weighing machines, as has been done in the matter of weighing
coal, measuring syrup and in other things, the matter could be settled at once. I have seen the machine working to which I refer, and it is as near perfect as any machine that can be found. It comes nearer to being correct than the system by which grain is being weighed and measured in Manitoba to-day. As it is now, they use bags, or, in some cases, they have weighing machines accepted by both parties interested, who feel that they can trust each other's honesty. This machine is much better than any I have seen yet. But to humor the whim of an officer who, only a few months ago was brought in from outside and placed over the heads of men who, by their experience, are better qualified to give an opinion, this enormous trade throughout Manitoba and the North-west Territories must be left at the mercy of any dishonest men. I speak with some warmth, Mr. Speaker, but I do so because nothing else seems to stir the Minister of Inland Revenue to a sense of what is due to the public. If we were satisfied with flails and reaping hooks and cradles, I suppose we would come up to his ideas of how farming ought to be conducted. I call the attention of the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to this matter, and I expect him to see to it that things shall not be left in such a position that members from Manitoba and the North-west Territories must rise and complain, as we justly complain, of this gross neglect on the part of the Minister of Inland Revenue.


Mr. W. J. ROOHE (Marquette).: This is a question that affects a very large portion of the community of the North-west who are engaged in threshing, and have a very great deal of money invested in this line of business. And when I refer to threshers. I do not wish to leave the impression that I refer to only a class of people who follow the avocation of threshing. There is a very large class of farmers who are interested in threshing and own threshing machines, and to whom the settlement of this question is as important as to those who own threshing machines and are not farmers. I believe you cannot purchase a modern machine for less than $2,500 or $3,000. This suggests the greatness of the amount invested in all the machines necessary to do the threshing in that great western country, which grew over one hundred millions of bushels of grain last year. Now many of the farmers have to mortgage their farms in order to purchase these machines, those of them who are owners of land. They have interest to pay on this money which they borrow, they have many risks to run, such as the drawbacks incident to bad weather ; they have to pay their hands oftentimes during this bad weather. They meet with accidents sometimes and have to pay out a good deal of money for repairs. Therefore the interest of the threshers is a very material interest, and is well worthy of consideration

at the hands of the head of the department under whose care such matters as this may come. They have to wait for months, and sometimes a year or more for ,the money which is coming to them for the grain which they thresh. When we take into consideration the drawbacks incident to their vocation, I say it is an impossibility for the Minister of Inland revenue to do too much towards meeting their wishes, insofar as no dissatisfaction is created in the other party to the contract.
Now, when we look at this Act as it reads at the present time, we find it says :
Every person who uses or who has in his possession for use in trade any weight, measure, scale, balance, steel-yard or weighing machine which is false or unjust

That is which has not the government stamp on it.
-shall incur a penalty not exceeding $25 and not less than $10 ; and in the case of a subsequent offence, of $50. And any contract, bargain, sale or dealing made by the same shall be void, and the weight, measure, scale, balance, steel-yard or weighing machine shall be forfeited and shall be forthwith seized as being so forfeited.
Now, here we have a machine insisted on by the department which at the present time the threshers cannot use, they could not get through with their threshing and comply with the Act if they had such a machine. It would be impossible to do it in the one season of the year. Therefore the threshers who are engaged in that occupation at the present time, are doing so illegally, so far as the standard measure is concerned. As a matter of fact they use a weighing machine or a bagger, which, in the majority of cases is agreed upon by both parties. But there are a class of people who may object to it, and take advantage of that Act and beat the thresher out of his just dues, and it is to meet this class that legislation is desired from the Minister of Inland Revenue.
Last year I referred to the fact that decisions had been given by the courts wherein the farmers have been allowed to go scot free in refusing to pay their threshers. That is tiie class I have just referred to, and it is to protect them from that class that the threshers desire this legislation. This machine that has been referred to by my hon. friend from Macdonald would be, I think, mutually agreeable both to the farmer and to the thresher. The Minister of Inland Revenue said last year that some one had invented a machine and would bring it to the department, and he thought it would be acceptable and would be adopted universally. I am not aware that that machine has been universally adopted, I do not think it has been. But the machine that has been brought to the department, the machine which the hon. member has referred to, is one that I think would satisfy Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).
the farmer as well as the thresher. It has been accepted by an officer of the department, and then refused by the head of the department. I attended a meeting of the Thresher's Union in my town last fall, at which this matter was discussed, and where their grievances were laid before the farmers. Every person there, farmer as well as thresher, was convinced that there was just cause of complaint on the part of the threshers, and a grievance existed which ought to be remedied by the Department of Inland Revenue. I do not know that it is necessary for me to go into the discussion at any length just now, before these papers are brought down. But I would urge upon the Minister of Inland Revenue the necessity for adopting some machine that would be mutually agreeable to the farmer and the thresher, in compliance with the promise he made last session.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Six o'clock.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order for :
Second reading ol Bill (No. 36) respecting the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company. -Mr. Bali.
Mr. G. BALL (Nicolet).: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to allow this Bill to stand, for the reason which I will give. The parties interested in this Bill are absent. They were not aware that the rule of the House has been changed, and that the Bill would be discussed upon the second reading instead of in the Railway Committee. My hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. March) took the opportunity the other day of proposing an amendment to the second reading of the Bill. He has just told me that he has a speech prepared.


Peter Macdonald: The hon. member (Mr. Ball) is not quite in order. There is nothing before the House.


Georges Ball: I would ask the House to allow the Bill to stand on account of the interested parties not being present. They were preparing to be at the committee, and they just got the news that the Bill would be discussed in this House instead of before the Railway Commitee.
Order allowed to stand.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 43) to incorporate the Regina and Hudson's Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Scott.

Bill (No. 50) respecting tlie British Columbia Southern Railway.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 51) to incorporate the North-west Bank of Canada.-Mr. McCreary.

Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, I would like to remind the bon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) that there are certain papers which were asked for some time ago and which have not been brought down yet. There are the papers relating to the colonial conference which have been promised to be laid on the Table and which have not been laid on the Table yet. There are the papers relating to the Bond-Hay treaty which have been promised. I believe the order was issued for these papers and they have not been brought down yet. There are the papers relating to the Alaskan boundary. I will send a memorandum over to the hon. Minister of Finance if he will allow me. I think it would be desirable that we should have these papers as soon as possible.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Some of the papers are ;n course of preparation, but whether all are covered by the arrangements I am not quite sure. I will see that the attention of the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is called to it.



TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND TARIFF INQUIRY.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Speaker, before you proceed with the Orders of the Day. I would like to ask the government if we may take as authoritative the statements which have been reproduced in the Montreal papers of the announcements in the city of Montreal by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine). At a meeting held in the city of Montreal a day or two ago my hon. friend announced as follows. I am quoting from the Montreal ' Herald ' :-
Minister of Marine speaks of the government's plans.
Hon. Raymond Prefontaine announces the make-up of the Railway Commission and outlines work of the cabinet.
Railway Commision to be composed of Sir Wm. Van Horne, president ; Messrs Geo. Bertram. Toronto, H. Kennedy of Quebec, Trans-poration Commissioners ; and Messrs. J. X. Perrault and Bell, secretaries.
Possibility of a committee on tariff revision.
The Atlantic port of the Grand Trunk Pacific to be on Canadian soil.
St. James election to be held in May.
End of session in July.
These are the announcements summarized, as the government organ has them summarized in its issue of yesterday. The announcement in regard to the composition of
tlie railway commission is of some importance, Mr. Speaker, and I feel justified in asking the government if the announcement is really the pronunciamento of the government upon the composition of the commission ? Speaking of a matter, perhaps of more importance, that is the revision of the tariff, the hon. Minister said thus :-
Passing for a few moments to the tariff the minister said that the government was determined to do justice to all, and to give due consideration to all interests, industrial, commercial and agricultural. If it found that a revision of the tariff was necessary or that legitimate industries required protection, the right thing would be done.
If it appeared that full justice could not be done during the session, the government might name a committee from the cabinet to secure the opinion of the country, as was done by the present ministry in 1897.	.	. It was
proposed to have a second transcontinental line from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and entirely on Canadian soil. To this enterprise the government would no doubt grant a measure of assistance, in keeping with prudence and wisdom.
I think it is right and proper, Mr. Speaker, that we should ask the government, if these announcements which are of very great importance are really a declaration of the government's policy. If they be, then this House would be entitled to have known it at an earlier date. We should like to know if it is determined upon that the composition of this commission is as was stated by the hon. minister (Hon. Sir. Prfifontaine). We should be informed also as to whether it is certain that the Grand Trunk Pacific will have its Atlantic port on Canadian soil; if the St. James election is to be held in Slay next, and if the prophetic vision of the minister as to the end of the session in July has any real foundation. We should know whether or not all these things form part of the government programme.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I am afraid I shall have to repeat the observation I made on a previous occasion; That announcements not made in that valuable publication known as the 'Canada Gazette ' are not to be taken as entirely authorized. I am unable to accept responsibility for statements appearing in a newspaper however worthy and reputable that newspaper may be. I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) that when announcements of an official character are to be made on these important subjects it will be proper that they should be made in the House of Commons, and I am quite satisfied that they will be so made.


Robert Laird Borden: At the same time, I think that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries who is at present in the House, ought be in a position to state to the House whether or not these remarks as reported in a reputable journal supporting * the government have really been made by

the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I do not think it is asking too much from this side of the House to request some statement as to whether or not these views have been expressed by a minister of the Crown, and whether tiiq report is correct. It is quite true that various announcements of a certain character are made in the ' Canada Gazette,' but still announcements are sometimes made by ministers of the Crown at public gatherings and it would be very interesting indeed to know whether this announcement has been made or whether it is a complete forgery and misstatement which is contained in this journal. If these announcements have been made by a minister *of the Crown, then it is right for us to know whether or not the government undertakes the responsibility for them-I do not see how it could avoid taking responsibility for them. If it does take responsibility for them, how does it happen that announcements of this character during a session of parliament are made by a minister of the Crown, not from his place in the House of Commons but are made by him at a gathering of this sort. I do not think that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has quite discharged his duty towards the House and the country in stating what he has stated in regard to this matter.


Sir. BENNETT.: Slay I ask the Sfinister of Finance: Whether the statements which were credited by the premier to the ex-Slinister of Public Works (Hon. Sir. Tarte) appeared in the 'Canada Gazette' or in the newspapers ?


The SIINISTER OF FINANCE.: 1 really do not remember, I was absent from the country at the time.


The SIINISTER OF SIARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond PrSfontaine).: 1 have no hesitation whatever in giving the explanations that are required. I must state first, that the newspaper which has been cited has drawn conclusions from ordinary expressions that any public man would make under the circumstances. 1 was present at that meeting of the Dander club in Maisonueuve division last Monday night and as a public man I said there, that from reviewing the political situation, I said that the program of the government ns laid down in the speech from the Throne was a programme which attracted the* attention of the people not only of Maisonneuve blit all over the Dominion. Commenting on the different items mentioned in the speech from the Throne, I made allusion of course to the question of transportation and I said, this question having been referred to, that it having been decided that the question would be referred to a commission this proposition seemed to have received the approbation not only of the friends of the government, but of the opposition; that the question deserved to be studied and that in face of the names that had been suggested there was every guarantee that this ques-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
tion would be studied with due care and due consideration. I mentioned the names that had been published in the papers as having been suggested to be members of that commission. I never went any further than that. I added that it might be found necessary to have the commission composed of five instead of three. I never mentioned and it could not be inferred, that the commission had been appointed; that the names of the commissioners had been considered by the cabinet., I never said anything of the sort, and people who listened to me understood what I said perfectly well.
Now ns regards the tariff, what did I say? I repeated exactly what I said during my election :	That the government was disposed to do justice to every class of the community-I never said anything else-that if there were remedies to be applied, or if certain things had to be done towards certain industries I had no doubt that the government of the country would do what was right towards these industries. I never went any further than that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then, if my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Frdfontaine) will allow me, he did not state that a committee of the cabinet would be named to investigate the just claims of those who asked for a revision of the tariff.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I said that whatever remedy would be applied, if it was not found satisfactory, it might be found possible for the government to proceed in the same way as they proceeded in 1897, and I said that without making any announcement on m.v responsibility or on the responsibility of the government. I was not authorized to do so. It could not be inferred from what I said that it was the laid down programme of the government to do one thing or the other. I was very guarded in everything I said and I do not understand how my hon. friend on the other side should take offence at anything I have said or the way 1 have said it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I take no offence at all.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: As regards the trans-continental line, I repeated generalities. 1 said that everybody admitted that a second transcontinental line was necessary. Everybody seemed to have that opinion and of course if a transcontinental line was built it stood to reason the government would have to consider the claims of any company that would construct that line in the same liberal way as other lines had been constructed in the past. I did not go any further than these announcements, and these announcements were no secrets. They were known all over the country since the speech from the Throne was delivered at the opening of this session, and I do not see that there is any reason for making such a fuss about them.


Robert Laird Borden: The announcement in the Montreal ' Herald ' is, that the hon. gentleman made a ringing speech.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I did.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman's speech to-night does not seem to have very much ring about it. Perhaps he can suggest to the House what portion of his explanation may be regarded as ringing; I did not notice it. This paper is either stating a fact or it is not. It states that it was announced by the hon. gentleman that Sir William Van Horne, president, and Messrs. John Bertram of Toronto and H. Kennedy of Quebec were to form this commission. The hon. gentleman either announced that or he did not.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: If the hon. leader of the opposition will allow me, I did not state anything else than what I have stated just now. I stated that from the reports in the papers the following names had been mentioned, and that if these gentlemen were to be the commission, I supposed they would offer a guarantee to the people of Canada so as to inspire confidence.


Robert Laird Borden: The report is not that.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Of course, I was not the reporter.


Robert Laird Borden: This is a newspaper which is supporting the hon. gentleman-at least, it is supporting him now, and I thought probably it would have a correct version of what he said. It does not put it as the hon. gentleman does. It says that the commission is to be composed of these gentlemen. I gather from the hon. gentleman that he made no such statement- that the version given by this newspaper is incorrect in that regard.	.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It may be an error in translation.


Robert Laird Borden: An error in translation-yes. The hon. gentleman does, however, make one very jmportant announcement to-night which I think might well have been made to parliament in the speech from the Throne. He not only announced in Montreal, but he announces here to-night, that the government does propose to give assistance to another transcontinental railway. I understood the hon. gentleman to say that distinctly to-night.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I must say it in French.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman referred to other railways that have been built across the continent, and he stated in my hearing, as 'Hansard' tomorrow will show, that a transcontinental
road is to receive the same assistance as other railways have received in the past.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Due consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: No, the same assistance. Whatever the hon. gentleman intended to say, I know what he did say, and that is that the government had come to a conclusion with regard to that.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Due consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Postmaster General is coming to the assistance of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and is interpolating a phrase which was not used by that hon. gentleman at all.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL. (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: I think the hon. gentleman is in error. He is using an expression which I did not hear the Minister of Marine and Fisheries use. 1 did not hear him say that the government intended to extend the same liberal consideration to the new road as had been extended to other roads. I heard him make no such statement.


Robert Laird Borden: I regret that the hearing of the hon. Postmaster General is so defective.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I regret that my hon. friend's understanding is so defective.


Robert Laird Borden: That may be, but my hearing is better than the Postmaster General's evidently.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I prefer understanding.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it is a somewhat serious matter, that an announcement of this kind should have been made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in Montreal, and repeated here to-night, as it has been in the presence of this House, while no announcement in the usual form has been made to parliament by the government. I would ask the Minister of Finance, in view of what the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has stated, whether or not the government is able to announce to the House any policy with regard to assistance to a transcontinental line. I think the House is entitled to that after the statement which has appeared in the public press, and after that statement has been corroborated as it has been to-night in the presence of the House by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am unable to agree with my hon. friend that this is the precise moment for announcing policies on great questions, which are not at the moment before the House. The question is one of great importance, and when the government have prepared a policy on

that question, they will not fail to communicate it to the House in the proper way.


Robert Laird Borden: The fact that it is important is a very good reason why it should not he announced to the country in this indirect manner.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries says it was not announced.


Robert Laird Borden: We will not quarrel about the words. I certainly understood them as stated by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that he announced to this great gathering in Montreal that a transcontinental line now proposed to be built would receive assistance of the same character as that which had been extended to similar enterprises in the past. You cannot get anything more nor less out of the announcement than that.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: When my hon. friend reads to-morrow's ' Hansard,' I think he will find-and I know he desires to be fair-that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries did not use the word he says he did. He has twice said that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries alleged that the government would extend assistance. I say that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries did not, in my hearing use the word assistance.


Robert Laird Borden: I will not quarrel with my hon. friend the Postmaster General about the exact word-whether it is aid or assistance or some synonymous word; but the impression which the hon. gentleman gave to my mind-and I am sure he gave the same impression to every man in this House-was that he had announced at this meeting in Montreal that the government had determined on some measure of assistance to a transcontinental line. I do not preteud to be able to quote the exact language he used, but I am perfectly sure of the exact impression he conveyed to my mind and to the mind of every hon. gentleman in this House who heard him.


Tile MINISTER. OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: As the hon. gentleman challenges every member of this House, I may say that I was listening most attentively to the remarks of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and they made no such impression on my mind, nor do I think they did on the minds of the majority of this House.


Robert Laird Borden: What did the hon. Minister of Public Works understand the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries to say ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS I understood him to say that he thought a transcontinental line was desirable and that it was receiving the consideration of


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: the government. That was all I understood him to say. I do not believe he used the word assistance or aid. However, it is a matter of impression. I am not particular as to the words, but, as the hon. leader of the opposition has challenged the House, I beg to state most candidly that the words made no such impression on my mind.


Robert Laird Borden: 
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. J. Raymond Prefon-taine).: (Translation.) I am going to speak French, and in that way, I may possibly succeed in making my statement clearer and more explicit.
Let me read from ' La Patrie ' of March 31, a report of the statement I made at the meeting referred to. Here are the very words I used upon that occasion, according to that report, and I am going to read them to the House in order to avoid any further misunderstanding on the matter, because, after all, it is only a tempest in a tea-pot. Referring to the new transcontinental line, I spoke as follows
A new transcontinental line running from the Pacific to the Atlantic, for the forwarding of the grain and other products of the west through all-Canadian channels, and by the shortest way, under Canadian control. Under such circumstances, the duty of the government is plain. They should aid in the carrying out of that undertaking to the best of their ability, with prudence and caution.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) Is that a correct report ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: (Translation.) Pretty nearly so.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) That is just what we wished to ascertain.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: (Translation.) So much the
better, then, if the hon. gentlemen opposite are satisfied with my explanation. These
8<51

are the very words I used on that occasion and I do not see there was much wrong in speaking as I did. As to the question of establishing a Commission-not a company, as ' Le Journal ' styles it-but a Commission on transportation, let me quote again from ' La Patrie.'
The name of Sir William Van Horne has keen spoken of

Now, Mr. Chairman, allow me to call your attention to the words * spoken of.' As you see, I am not responsible for that piece of news, and I was merely repeating a current rumour in the country.
-the name of Sir William Van Horne has been mentioned as president of that commission, together with the names of Mr. John Bertram, of Toronto, and Mr. H. Kennedy, of Quebec, as assistants, and those of Mr. J. X. Perratilt, of Montreal, and Ball, of Winnipeg, as secretaries.


Mr. MONET.: (Translation.) Is that the opinion of the government ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: (Translation.) That is altogether out of the question, and I once more draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the words ' spoken of ' clearly. I was repeating what had been reported by the newspapers which had referred to the gentlemen I just referred to as about to be appointed members of that Commission. I do not see the use of quibbling in such matters.
As to what I said in connection with the prorogation as going to take place about the end of July, I take the liberty of quoting again from the report of ' La Patrie.'
(Translation.) All the forecasts point to an era of prosperity and progress. In the House of Commons, they are railroading parliamentary business. The opposition members, so far, have hardly indulged in any criticism worth mentioning and we are in hopes that, before the month of July next, the whole programme, as announced in the speech from the Throne, will have been disposed of.
This is, no doubt, the statement to which the hon. gentlemen opposite have taken exception, and yet, I had no more idea of wounding their feelings than the man in the mcon. I am, indeed, very sorry to have offended my hon. friends opposite, when stating that, so far, they had not yet addressed themselves seriously to the task of criticising the government programme.
At all events, what I said in Montreal, I stated with a full knowledge of the facts, after having carefully weighed my words.
There is, then, in a nutshell, the whole matter; and the House now may realize that there is nothing in what I said that was calculated to be offensive to anybody.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) Let the hon. gentleman, I pray, keep cool and be serious in such matters. I want the minister to inform us whether it is a fact, as reported by the press, that lie stated at the meeting referred to that
there would be a readjustment of the tariff, if necessary, and that such readjustment would be made by a committee of the government, as was done in 1897. I want him to tell us whether that report is correct. We have, surely, the right to be informed whether the statement made by a member of the government is correct, chiefly in view of the fact that such statement was re-| ported in the same way by all the French and English papers of Montreal. And when we ask the hon. gentleman to tell us whether in making that statement he was the echo of the government, he shelters himself behind the French language and refuses to give us a direct answer, but resorts to quibbles and jokes.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: (Translation.) Let the hon. gentlemen opposite also keep cool. Here is the statement referred to, as reported in ' La Patrie ' :
Should we find it impossible to do justice to all concerned, during this session, some means might be devised, as in 1897, whereby a subcommittee of the Privy Council would be appointed to hold an investigation into the complaints of manufacturers and workingmen.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) Is that a correct report ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: (Translation.) It is absolutely correct, but, I ask again, is there anything objectionable in that statement ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) That is not the question; all we want to know is whether that report is correct or not.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: (Translation.) Absolutely correct. What do you find as being objectionable in that statement ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) That is not in question; the question is this : is the report correct ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: (Translation.) I repeat again, the statement is absolutely correct. I said that we could proceed in the same way as in 1897. If the hon. gentlemen are not satisfied that I have told the truth and that I have said something unreasonable, I cannot help it. I quite understand that the hon. gentlemen feel rather disappointed, but, again, I cannot help it.


William Humphrey Bennett: A short time ago, the attention of the House was called to the fact that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals had committed the government, by an official utterance, to the policy of aiding the construction of a transcontinental line. It is quite true that when the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) read the interview attributed to the Minister of Railways and Canals, that hon. gentleman promptly repudiated it. What

then happened ? No sooner was the denial of the hon. minister published than the correspondent who had written up that interview, declared over his own name in the newspaper in which it appeared, that the Minister of Railways and Canals had given him the interview reported. From that day until this, the hon. minister has not dared to rise in his place and deny the statement of the reporter. What followed ? The right hon. the First Minister simply ignored the action of the Minister of Railways and Canals, although the statement made by him was one of an official nature and of great moment to the country. But that was not the only case of the kind. The hon. Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) went to Toronto a week ago and there made a strong statement which is reported In the Toronto ' Globe ' of March the 24th, with reference to the same matter as that concerning which the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. 1'rei'ont.aine) gave an interview in Montreal. It is true, if we are to judge by the report of the latter interview, that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was more explicit, frank and plainspeaking than the Postmaster General. But none the less the Postmaster General led his audience in Toronto to believe this government stood pledged to aid some railway-lie did not particularize it by its name- that was to be built from one ocean to the other. Let me read what the hon. Postmaster General is reported to have said :
We have other railways built partly with public and partly with private moneys, but owned by private corporations, not by the state. Public opinion to-day appears to be more or less against subsidizing railways. Is there any prospect ol capitalists out of their own capital alone building a line over the thousand miles of country to which I have alluded, which for many a year will fail to supply any reasonable return on the capital invested ? Capitalists are not philanthropists, but expect a return upon their investments. Shall we proceed to subsidize the various railways that are now proposing to extend their lines to Manitoba	
Or shall we fold our arms, shrink from discharging our proper responsibilities and let the country drift ?
There is the third, a more broad minded, progressive, enterprising and patriotic section of the people, and ' Onward Canada' party in effect, who, recognizing the unparalleled progress our country is making to-day, demand that instead of checking the movement by inaction we should take occasion by the hand and wisely and masterfully grapple with, and if possible successfully solve, the problems growing out of Canada's great and unprecedented development. One of the most serious cf these problems is the railway question to which I have alluded.
What other inference can we draw than that the Postmaster General intended to impress his hearers with the belief that the government was going to assist one or more of these railway schemes now in contemplation.


William Humphrey Bennett: 


Peter Macdonald: Does the hon. gentleman intend to discuss this matter much further ? He is not in order.


William Humphrey Bennett: 1 was about through, and as this discussion has been proceeding on the same lines, it seems to me that I am justified in making these references. However, if necessary 1 shall move the adjournment before I close. It must be clear to everyone that both the Postmaster General in Toronto and the Minister of Marine in Montreal intended to give fair notice to the Canadian public that subsidies would be granted by this government to some of these lines of railway. The only difference between the two is that the Postmaster General has perhaps shown a little more tact than did his colleague the Minister of Marine. In trying to explain away his interview, the hon. Minister of Marine said he was simply repeating the current gossip of the newspapers regarding the Transportation Commission. Well, it has no doubt been frequently reported in the public press that Sir William Van Horne was to be a member of the commission, but I challenge the hon. minister to produce a single newspaper which has given in that connection the name of Mr. John Bertram or Mr. Harold Kennedy.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: You have not read the papers.


William Humphrey Bennett: I challenge the hon. gentleman to produce a single newspaper which gave, before this interview, the names of those gentlemen in that connection. As regards changes in the tariff, it is pretty evident that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, made a slip and an unguarded statement. The hon. Minister of Finance has endeavoured to side track the question by stating that anything not official is not to be charged to the government as a whole, that the government are not responsible for anything that appears in the press, except in the official publication of Canada-the Official Gazette. But the hon. Minister of Finance knows very well that the reason which his right hon. leader gave for dismissing the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) from the cabinet was that lie had read the reports which appeared in the different newspapers from time to time of the utterances of his ex-colleague. It will not do for the Minister of Finance to treat the matter in the cavalier way he has done. The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was unguarded in what he said in Montreal the other night. He was among his friends, and he wished to show his friends that he knew something of the inner cabinet secrets-as no doubt he does-and he wished to show the other ministers too, probably, that he had leave and license to take more rope than has been allowed to the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte). That lie has

taken plenty is apparent, and that he has not hanged himself is also apparent. The cabinet cannot afford to dispense with the services of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and he is free to say what he will where he will. I will move the adjournment of the House.


Mr. A. E. KEMP (Bast Toronto).: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance a question. The report of the speech of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in the Montreal ' Herald '-and I am informed that practically the same report appears in the French papers-says :
If it is found that a revision of the tariff was necessary or that legitimate industries required protection, the right thing would be done. If it appeared that full justice could not be done during the session, the government might name a committee from the cabinet to secure the opinion of the country as was done bv the present ministry in 1897.
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether this is the policy of the government or not ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The policy of the government in tariff matters is usually announced in the budget speech, and I do not feel at liberty to make any announcement in advance of that.


Albert Edward Kemp: Then the Minister of Marine and Fisheries had no authority for making that statement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I extremely regret that the government have so far departed from the custom of that great type of parliaments and governments, the British parliament and the British cabinet, in making its announcements to the world. There are two channels through which announcements usually come, and one of these is by speeches made by prominent ministers at great public functions, at which they practically declare their policy to the world, and that announcement is regarded as quite as authoritative as though made on the floors of parliament. Now, if we believe the report to be correct, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in this case did exactly what an English cabinet minister would do. And one great reason why we were .Instilled in taking that as an official announcement of the government, is the fact that for several days, although that specific statement was made in a prominent daily paper in the great city of Montreal, a daily paper that was friendly to the present government. tli>
lion, minister did not think it worth while to deny it or say that it was an incorrect version of his statement, until he was challenged here in the House. And now' that that is done he takes shelter under the plea of an incorrect report. The whole public, in the meantime had come to the conclusion that the minister's statement was an official announcement of the government. I say it is very regrettable that the present gov-28
ernment have so far departed from the well-understood methods that obtain in Great Britain, and that they tell the people of the country that the only thing we can believe with regard to this cabinet is what appears in the ' Canada Gazette ' unless the statement is made by the Minister of Finance or the First Minister on the floor of the parliament. I am afraid that is rather discrediting the personnel of the cabinet and the cabinet as a whole, if we are not free to take the announcement of a prominent minister at a prominent function as indicating the policy which the government intend to follow.



TREATMENT OF IMMIGRANTS.

Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).: I wish to bring to the attention of the House and of the government a matter which I think is of some urgency. It is in connection with the immense movement now taking place, of settlers from across the ocean and across this continent to our North-west. It is a matter of gratification to us all, and more especially to those of us who come from the North-w'est, that the settlers now coming in there by thousands are practically all British. It seems that circumstances have brought about a change which even our ow'n officials could not bring about. On Saturday last, there were no less than four ships discharging immigrants at the port of Halifax, and, during the next few hours eight special trains started across this continent to the North-west. They passed through and by Ottawa Monday last. I took occasion to devote the greater part of that day to seeing and questioning these immigrants and ascertaining what accommodation was being provided for their transport across this country. The conditions which they were subjected' to were simply scandalous. Not only did I see this myself, but I may tell the Acting Minister of the Interior (Hon. Sir William Mulock), agents of whose departments are on the trains, that from communication with those agents, I believe they are aware of the facts, and are prepared to report that the treatment and the accommodation provided are simply not decent. On one train especially, that was here Monday, a train composed of eleven cars, there was not more than one car that was fit to travel in for twenty-four hours continuously. The other cars were borrowed from the Grand Trunk and the Intercolonial. The worst, unfortunately, were government cars, borrowed from the Intercolonial Railway. I am not seeking to criticise or find fault with the transportation companies. This is a public matter, altogether public. These cars were simply short trip day coaches, coaches with fixed, narrow seats, with no berth below and no berths at the top, without even so much as parcel racks. Passengers here were complaining very much. They told me that the aisles even had to be used the previous



nights for sleeping, the seats not being movable at all. There was only one car on one of these trains where water was obtainable. I was so informed, and I believe it, for, reaching here where water was obtainable, the passengers proceeded to have a good wash. And the lavatory conveniences were used indiscriminately by male and female. This is not common decency. These people are a very superior class, compared with what our immigration has been at times. They are people who have come from good homes. They are not all young men ; there are families and a large proportion of women among them. And X say it is a reflection on our country and on our methods that they should be carried across the country in this style. When they left Halifax they had before them four, five or six days' travel. When they reached here they had been on the trains nearly two days, and they had nearly four days still ahead of them.	,
Now some remedy should be applied, some way should be found by which the immigrants that are coming to this country may be properly transported. Yesterday 2,000 people sailed from Liverpool, and the number is likely to be increased. The railway company may say that they have not rolling stock sufficient to convey them. No matter what the explanation is, the thing must be remedied. Although the company are transporting them across this country, the company is not responsible for their coming here, they are induced to come here by the representatives of this government. They were told that travelling in this country is far more easy, far more safe and comfortable, and far more luxurious than in their own country, and on this information they do not provide as they otherwise would for their journey. It is not until they get here that they find that 'this state of affairs exists. Now I am not prepared to take any reason as being final that provides for a continuance of this state of affairs. It is not sufficient to say that they are settlers, that they are being transported across this continent at a very low rate Indeed. That may be, but at the same time it does not meet the case. The Immigration Department have officers on those trains who go along with the immigrants, with the idea, I presume, of obviating any difficulties they may meet with. I can understand that possibly the company could not be expected to have sufficient rolling stock on hand, and the probability is that they will not have next week, nor during the whole of the season. Now there is a tremendous immigration coming in this year. All the steamships sailing from Liverpool are practically booked up now away into the season, and if this trouble continues it means sending back to the old country the very worst reports. It means unfavourable criticism, it means dissatisfaction, it means demoralization, and is one of the worst things that could happen


Arthur W. Puttee: to people who have left their homes for this new country. Now in bringing this matter up, of course I have no purpose of finding any fault with the government, or with the company, but I do insist for the sake of these immigrants, for the sake of our own reputation, for the sake of that western country where they are going to settle, that something be done immediately to provide for their transportation and to obviate a repetition of these difficulties.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock).: With reference to the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) as to the defective arrangements for the transportation of immigrants arriving in this country for the North-west, I think the House will agree that that hon. gentleman has rendered a public service in drawing the attention of parliament and the government to the condition of affairs which he describes. It will be the duty of the government to use all means within its power to correct any abuses of this nature. We can understand that railways may have unexpected difficulties when confronted with such a large demand upon their rolling stock as is the case at the present time, owing to the increased volume of immigration, greater than the country has ever witnessed heretofore. Nevertheless I agree with my hon. friend that we must not accept excuses, but must bring every possible pressure to bear in order that the transportation should be creditable and suitable to the service required.


Mr. R. H. POPE (Compton).: I am sure we all agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) in his effort to have the transportation facilities as perfect as possible for these newcomers from the other side. But that subject is one that has been engrafted into this discussion, and I think it is well that we return to the subject under which this adjournment was moved. It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that the ministers from the province of Quebec, the exMinister and the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries, are somewhat in the position of the parrot, they talk too much and they get into trouble. Of course we might be asked to excuse the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, owing to the fact that he is young in the business and has not been pro-jierly trained. I would advise the First Minister to create a kindergarten of some sort where these ministers of his can be trained, in which some of the ambitious young men who are sitting behind the First Minister and who no doubt are looking forward to enjoying at an early day a front seat, with the salaries of a cabinet minister, may be put to school, and be properly trained, so that when they do rise to that position and are honoured by an invitation to a seat in front, this country may not be disturbed and excited, and will be able to judge from the

public utterances of the cabinet ministers that he has a right to say -what he did say. Now, Sir, I have been interested in the discussion that has taken place at various times in this House, and have taken some little interest during the last six or seven years in the welfare of bon. gentlemen opposite. I must say that I do not blame the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to the same extent that some hon. gentlemen on this side of the House might be inclined to do. In the first place he is young, and tender, and unsophisticated, therefore, I think we ought to look upon his faults with some leniency, and perhaps he will do better. Perhaps this will be his most serious violation of tlie great constitution of this country, because it is a violation of the constitution of Canada for any minister to make too pronounced a statement upon a public question. We see now sitting lonely opposite us one of the greatest leaders of the Liberal party since 1896, who also fell into this miserable trap of speaking too previously. Now he sits alone over there, because he violated the constitution of Canada, and jeopardized this whole confederation. And now we have a juvenile coming along who has succeeded him, and who is doing the same thing. Now, Sir, we see an old trained politician, a man who has been many years a member of this House and a member of this cabinet since its formation, a man who has recently received title and honour from his Sovereign, and as I look at the * Globe ' newspaper and find the utterances of the Postmaster General at that meeting in which he knew he was to be followed by one of these parrot gentlemen from the province of Quebec, I can understand that he did feel jealous, and he says now :	' 1
know that in days gone by I have been forestalled in this province by the ex-Minister of Public Works, who has cut more ice, so to speak, in my own native province than I have myself ; consequently I think it is well that I should avail myself of this opportunity. He says that in the most diplomatic language, of course, but at the same time he intimates that he knows something of the cabinet of Canada. ' I have some appreciation,' he says, ' of the policy of the cabinet of which I am a member, and I will take the opportunity at this banquet of intimating '-I need not repeat what he said, it has been read here this afternoon. But the statement is intimated as plainly as language could do it, having regard for his position as a minister of the Crown with six or seven years of training.
Well, Sir, he spoke there and he laid the foundation for the hou. Minister of Marine and Fisheries to follow. He said :	What
shall we do ? Shall we go backward or shall we go forward ? Shall we aid these great transcontinental lines ? Some of them have been built, but considering the country through which the new lines have to pass for a thousand miles-the country 28J
north of Lake Superior, I presume, he meant -can we expect any man to go and construct a road over that difficult country without assistance ? So that it is not surprising that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries at that meeting, where he was surrounded by those gentlemen, who have linked arms with him, and supported by newspapers, which, a short time ago, condemned him as one of those things that were not suitable to be Cabinet ministers, enthused by finding himself surrounded by new converts to his popularity, with all these surroundings and after having partaken of a luxurious dinner should have become possibly a little bit unguarded in his statements. That the hon. gentleman, the juvenile of the Cabinet, should have given) utterance in very strong language to the policy of the government is not to be wondered at. We have the 'Globe' of tonight which says of the Transportation Commission :
It may be taken for granted that Mr. Pre-fontaine's foreshadowing of the personnel of the transportation commission is authentic, and that it will be composed of Sir Wm. Van Horne, of Montreal ; Mr. John Bertram, of Toronto and Mr. Matthew Kennedy, of Quebec.
The Toronto ' Globe ' had never heard or any newspaper in Canada had never heard of' it until the hon. gentleman broke forth on that unfortunate evening in Montreal; When we know that the hon. Postmaster General could fully appreciate the jeopardy in which he placed himself in Toronto, we can appreciate that the hon. Postmaster General felt anxious that this should be made public before this new man steps in from Quebec, because he said to himself : I have had as much experience as this other man. I have played a small part in a small game; the ex-Minister of Public Works that man whom they would burn in effigy in my province, has come up, notwithstanding all the sacrifices I have made for my native province, he has cut the ground from under my feet; I find another man coming from) the province of Quebec and the only safe position for me to take is at least to formulate an idea and endeavour to convey some idea to the gentlemen who are listening to me that I, the Postmaster General of Canada, am iu possession of the secrets of the cabinet and that these railway lines are to be subsidized. I do not say that there is anything wrong in a public man saying that great railway lines will or will not be subsidized but, after the severe lesson which has been taught the hon. exMinister of Public Works, after he has been without much ceremony practically driven out of the Cabinet on a great principle of tlie violation of the constitution of Canada, if this is to be the punishment that it is to be meted out to a man of his position and rank in the cabinet, I say, Sir, that the hon. Postmaster General and the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries ought to make way

for some of those other gentlemen who are In the kindergarten preparing for the portfolios that are waiting for them on the front benches.
Motion (Mr. Bennett) withdrawn.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mi'. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 16) to amend the Railway Act.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the object of this Bill ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Mr. Speaker, it may be sufficient at the present time for me to explain that this Bill is, framed to effect an object which was discussed at some length on one of the last days of last session to provide that railways in the prairie country of the North-west shall be properly fire-guarded.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I understand my hon. friend (Mr. Scott) wishes that the Bill shall go to the Committee on Railways and Canals where we shall have it fully examined.


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

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House go again into Committee of Supply.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: On our side of the House it was not expected that we would) go into Committee of Supply tonight. It was thought that the evening would be taken up with these public Bills, and I may say, so far as I know, that we are not prepared to go on with supply. There are several Bills which we expected would be discussed but which have been allowed to stand.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In view of the statement of the hon. gentleman, I will withdraw the motion for the House to go into Committee of Supply.
Motion withdrawn.



HOME RULE FOR IRELAND - PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. SAMUEL HUGHES (North Victoria).: I rise to correct a misstatement that appears in the Ottawa Evening ' Journal ' and the Ottawa ' Free Press ' in relation to some remarks made by the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costigan) last night, when some member of the House interrupted that hon. gentleman in his very learned and interesting speech, by interjecting the term ' rats.' The ' Journal ' and ' Free Press ' credit your humble servant with that interruption. It was not my interruption, and I ask these journals to make the necessary correction.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 9.20 p.m.


Rufus Henry Pope: HOUSE OF COMMONS;
Thursday, April 2, 1908.