1903-05-04

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 143) respecting the Canadian North-west Irrigation Company.-Mr. Oliver -By Mr. McCreary.

Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to call attention to the order of business of the House. For the last two or three years, when the government have taken all the days in the week

but one, if the day not taken was other than Wednesday, the order of business for Wednesday was adopted for the day so left free for business introduced by private members. I understand that we have but one day devoted to business introduced by private members under the resolution introduced by the right hon. leader of the government, and that day is Monday ; and I see by the Order paper that the regular Order for this day is retained-that is, we have first, questions to be put by members, next notices of motion, and next public Bills and Orders. Now, notices of motion may occupy the day and so public Bills and Orders be entirely excluded from consideration. Under the regular order of business we have Monday devoted, as under the Order now before us, to questions to be put by members, then notices of motion, then public Bills and Orders; Wednesday to notices of motion up to six o'clock and public Bills and Orders after half-past seven ; and Thursday to public Bills and Orders up to six o'clock, and notices of motion after half-past seven. This divided the time as equally and fairly as it is possible to do between these classes of business-notices of motions and public Bills and Orders. I presume that it is an oversight that the custom of the last two or three years has not been followed and the order of business for Wednesday fixed for Monday. Now, we have on the Order paper nineteen public Bills. If the Order is retained as it stands, we are in danger of not reaching any of these. Some of them are Bills of importance, among them the Bill with regard to the cigarette question.


Mr. CLARKE.: The government will take that up.


John Charlton: The government may. But then the government may not. This House has affirmed by an overwhelming majority that a certain line of action is desirable with regard to that matter and here is a Bill introduced by the gentleman who introduced that resolution-


Mr. SPEAKER.: Do I understand that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) intends to conclude with a motion.


John Charlton: I will conclude with a motion, if necessary, Mr. Speaker, though I was merely calling attention to the Order of procedure. Here are nineteen public Bills which, under the Order laid down, if it is not amended, will not be reached or taken into consideration during this session. I was pointing out the importance of one of these Bills, that respecting the cigarette question. I think the country will be very much dissatisfied with the course of this House, if, through inadvertence, no action is taken upon that matter. For this reason, I suggest to the government the course that has been adopted for the last two years certainly, and, I think, for the last three years- that the order of business for Wednesday
shall be made the order of business for Monday, making the Order first, question put by members, then notices of motions up to six o'clock, and public Bills and Orders after half-past seven. I move that this House do now adjourn.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I may explain to my hon. friend (Mr. Charlton) that there has been no oversight this year in the motions made to take Wednesday and Thursday for government business, for the reason that all the public Bills to which my hon. friend has referred have been called, not only once or twice, but three times. If they have not been disposed of, it is by no fault of the government.


John Charlton: Has the Cigarette Bill been called ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, because it is placed on the Order paper for the first time to-day, and it cannot be called to-day because it is not printed. I doubt very much if the notices of motion on the Order paper will not be exhausted before six o'clock. In all probability we shall get into public Bills and Orders before this evening's session.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: An understanding was reached under which two Wednesdays were to be reserved, this being done for the reason suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Charlton) that there were a number of Bills on the Order paper. At the time, I drew the right hon. premier's (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier's) attention to the fact of these Bills being on the paper, and so the two Wednesdays.were reserved. But these proved of no value for the purpose intended, because both were taken up by the budget debate. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman would consider that point and let us know at a future time-


The PRIME MINISTER.: We will see what progress we make to-day.


Robert Laird Borden: After that time, the matter might be considered, and, if necessary, some opportunity for the consideration of these Bills be afforded.



CORRESPONDENCE RE SOREL WHARF.

Mr. R. POPE (Compton).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I beg to remind the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) that on Friday last I asked for reports, correspondence and general information in connection with the wharf at Sorel.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: I gave instructions to the officials of the department to have any information brought down. It will probably be here this afternoon. [DOT]



STRIKE OF SECTION-MEN ON CANADA ATLANTIC RAILWAY.

Mr. J. T. SCHELL (Glengarry).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I desire to ask the government if they are aware that the section-men on the Canada Atlantic Railway are on strike. In fact, I believe there are no section-men at work upon that, railway at the present time. I think probably it would be in the interest of the public to have some inquiry made in reference to that matter.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: The government is aware that there is some misunderstanding, probably in the nature of a strike, perhaps an actual strike, on the part of the section-men of the Canada Atlantic Railway. On Friday, a committee asked the intervention of the Department of Labour, and the department) has offered its services. But no communication in respect thereof has been received from the Canada Atlantic.



WAGES OF CANAL EMPLOYEES.

Mr. A. BRODER (Dundas).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair). I understand that the employees on the Cornwall canal and the dock labourers have received an increase in their pay amounting now to $1.50 a day. I wish to know if that increase of pay also affects the labourers on the Williamsburg canal, or only those on the Cornwall canal ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: It will be general. I know no distinction between the labourers on the canals.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 54) respecting the Canada Permanent and Western Canada Mortgage Corporation.-Mr. Osier.
On section 1,
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: This clause is amended by adding after the word 'means' in the last line, the following:
Before such change of name shall take effect, a general meeting of the shareholders of the said company shall be called for the purpose of considering it, and a resolution accepting and approving thereof shall be passed by the shareholders present, or represented by proxy, at such meeting, and certified copy of such resolution shall within fifteen days after the passing thereof said meeting be published in the ' Canada Gazette ' and such change of name shall take effect upon the date of such publication.


Edward Frederick Clarke: When this Bill was being. considered by the Banking and Commerce Committee it was amended by adding Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
the clause just read by the Chairman, the committee not being satisfied that the shareholders authorized the name of the company to be changed. I have received a number of documents from the solicitor of the company, respecting the matter, which I have submitted to the lion. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), and I am satisfied from a perusal of them that there will be no objection from the shareholders- that, in fact, they desire the) change to be made. I therefore move that the additional clause be struck out. I am satisfied it is not at all necessary, as there is no opposition to the desired change of name.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: There was a question in the Committee on Banking and Commerce as to whether this proposed change had the approval of the shareholders, and this clause was put in to make assurance doubly sure. However, since that time such representations have been made by hon. gentlemen in the House and by persons outside as have satisfied me, at all events, and I think will satisfy the committee, that the shareholders will be satisfied to have this change made, and as the insertion of the clause might cause some embarrassment, in view of the representations that have been made, I have no objection to the motion made by the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke) to have the clause struck out.
Bill reported; read the third time, and passed.



MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 65) respecting the Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Bruce.
On section 1,
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved ;
That section 1 be amended by inserting after the words ' section 2 ' in the third line of the section, the words ' chapter 112.'
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, reported ; read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 103) respecting the Royal Trust Company.-Mr. Casgrain.
Bill (No. 100) to incorporate the Colonial Bank of Canada.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 115) to incorporate the Richmond and Drummond Fire Insurance Company.- Mr. Tobin.
Bill (No. 105) to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of the Standard Car Truck Company.- Mr. Belcourt.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 131) to incorporate the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of Canada, Limited.-Mr. Mclsaac.
Bill (No. 134) to incorporate the Erie, Ontario, Power Company.-Mr. German.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOYD moved the second reading of Bill (No. 128) for the relief of William Francis Schooley.
John Charlton: This Bill seems likely to go through with the facility which usually attends the passage of Bills of this character through this House. I have had my attention called to this Bill for the first time by seeing it on the Order Paper. It is a Bill entitled ' An Act for the relief of William Francis Schooley.' The Bill sets forth the allegation that this man's wife left him some years ago, went to the United States, obtained a divorce there, is married and is living with the person whom she married in the state of Michigan; and he applies for a divorce and the privilege of marrying again. Now, these circumstances undoubtedly warrant the issue of a decree of divorce. But the question which faces me in this matter is : What do I know about these circumstances 1 I am galled upon to act, as a member of the House of Commons, which either gives or withholds this decree. The decree can be given properly only upon the substantiation of these grounds. If the grounds alleged do not exist, the decree should be withheld. I know nothing about the trial, nothing about the evidence. I am not aware whether there was a cross-examination, whether the evidence was properly brought out, whether there is collusion, whether the allegation is well founded. Under these circumstances the Bill is presented to this House for its ratification. I wish to call attention, as I have done repeatedly before, to the fact that, in my opinion, this whole proceeding is wrong. If cause exists for divorce, that cause should be ascertained by judicial process, and for this purpose the case should be referred to a properly constituted court. There should be no doubt resting upon the mind of any individual who is called upon to register a decree with reference to such a matter. But, in this case, I feel that sense of doubt. I do not wish to do injustice to one party; on the other hand, I do not wish to do injustice to the other party. Yet, in a broad sense, I know nothing about the case except the representation that is made here, that a commitee of the Senate has had the matter under consideration and has seen fit to report favourably upon this Bill. I protest against this line of action. I protest against being called upon as a member of this House of Commons to record my verdict in this matter. The whole system of grant-73
ing divorces in cases outside the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick is based upon a fallacious arrangement. I repeat that this is a judicial case that should pertain to a judicial tribunal; that the Act should issue only upon evidence which, under the law would warrant a divorce. As soon as possible we should get rid of this expensive, this antiquated, this absurd system of granting divorces. We should establish a divorce court, set forth clearly in the law the conditions under which a divorce may be granted ; then, let it be ascertained by 'the tribunal whether the circumstances as established by the evidence, are such as to warrant the granting of a divorce under the law.


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


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette) asked :: By what arrangement with the government has the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company acquired the even, as well as the odd, numbered sections, in the district in which the land was granted to the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway Company ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: I notice that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche, Marquette) has an Order on the Paper, which, if granted, would answer all the purposes of this question. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. gentleman would prefer the documents themselves which he has moved for. I suggest that he let the question drop,


GREAT NORTH-WEST CENTRAL AND CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. DOUGLAS-by Mr. Davis-asked :
What means have been taken, if any, by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, to fulfil its agreement, made with the government three years ago, as to the building of sixty miles on the Great North-west Central Railway ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, on 29th June, 1900, filed plans for 20-20 miles of Great North-west Central Railway, and constructed it, from Hamiota to Miniota; and on the 10th of November, 1902, they filed plans of the line from Forest to Lenore, 41-41 miles, and constructed it.


SUBSIDIES TO RAILWAYS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILSON-by Mr. Ingram-asked :
What amount of bonus or subsidies, voted by parliament, have been paid to railway companies, in the following years :-1901 and 1902, and up to the 1st of April, 1903 ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: Amount of
. REVISED EDITION

bonus or subsidies, voted by parliament, paid to railway companies :	For the year
ending June 30th, 1901, .$2,512,328.80 ; for year ending June 30th, 1902, $2,093,939.00 ; from July 1st to April 1st, 1903, $1,363,480.34.


RAILWAY LAND SUBSIDIES - MANITOBA AND .NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES.
Mr. SCOTT asked :: 1.	OI the lands voted for railway construction, what is the area reserved at this date for each company, (a) in Manitoba, (b) in the North-west Territories ?
2.	What area has been patented to each company, (a) in Manitoba, (b) in the North-west Territories ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock).: (1)


IN MANITOBA.
[Stage Direction]
Acres.
Canadian Northern Railway	 5,432,000
Canadian Pacific Railway	 690,000
Manitoba and North-western Railway. 41,000 Manitoba South-western Colonization ,
Railway	 313,403
Total	 6,476,403

[Stage Direction]
Acres.
Alberta Railway and Coal Company.	22,048.42
Calgary and Edmonton Railway.. ..	304,288.90
Canadian Northern Railway	 24,898,000.00
(Of which 22 million acres is along proposed line between Manitoba and Hudson's Bay.)
Canadian Pacific Railway, Souris Canadian Pacific Raliway,	main line 8,615,738.00
branch	  2,119,350.00
Canadian Pacific Railway, Pipestone
extension of Souris	branch		200,320.00
Manitoba and North-western Railway	 1,460,000.00
Manitoba South-western Colonization Railway	 1,044,685.00
Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railroad and Steamboat Company	 3,777,410.00
Red Deer Valley Railway and Coal Company	 322,500.00
Total	 42,764,340.00
(2.)

[Stage Direction]
Acres.
Canadian Pacific Railway	 1,939,843.90
Canadian Northern Railway	 5,692.75
Great North-west Central	Railway.	5,736.74
Manitoba South-western Colonlza- ,
tion Railway	 212,887.74
Manitoba and North-western Railway	 535,069.74
Total		 2,699,230.87

[Stage Direction]
Acres.
Alberta Railway and Coal Company. 1,092,319.58 Calgary and Edmonton Railway.. . 1,139,539.59 Canadian Pacific Railway, main
line	 8,645,644.47
Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: Acres.
Great	North-west Central Railway. 314,263.26
Manitoba South-western Colonization	Railway	
72,187.99Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railroad and Steamboat	Company	
328,042.02Manitoba and North-western Railway	
523,377.13Total	
12,115,374.04


A TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Mr. BENNETT asked :: 1.	Did .the Postmaster General, or any other
member of the present cabinet, declare, at Toronto, or elsewhere, that in face of the rivalry which existed between the Canadian Pacific, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian Northern, and the Trans-Canada, to build a transcontinental railway, the Laurier government had immediately set to work to study the project of itself building a railway, connecting Quebec with Winnipeg, by way of Lake St. John and James Bay ?	*
2.	If said declaration was made, when and to whom was it made ?
3.	Was it made in the name or with the authority of the cabinet ?
4.	Is it really the Intention of the government to build, itself, and at its own cost, another railway, crossing the continent, and connecting Quebec with Winnipeg, by way of Lake St. John and James Bay ?
5.	When will this important work be begup ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: No member of the government has made any announcement of policy upon this question.


MAIL SERVICE-CUTLER, SPANISH MILLS,
[Stage Direction]
&c.
Were tenders asked for mall service between Cutler, Spanish Mills, Little Current and Weki-magong, for 1903 ? If so, who was the lowest tenderer, and was his tender accepted ? If lowest tenderer was not accepted, who is now performing the service, if performed, and on what terms ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	William Fraser ($1,800). His tender was not accepted.
8. Sims Bros, at $1,500 per annum.
MAIL SERVICE-CUTLER, GORE BAY, &c.


Mr. BENNETT asked :: Were tenders asked for the mail service between Cutler, Gore Bay and Kagawong, for the season of 1903 ? If so, who was the lowest tenderer ; and was his tender accepted ? If lowest tenderer was not accepted, who is now performing the service, if performed, and upon what terms ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Herbert Cleland ($2,000). He was offered the contract, but declined it unless also given the contract for the Cutler, Span-

ish Mills, Little Current and Manitowaning service.
3.	William Fraser ($1,800).


PRIVATE CARS ON INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.
Mr. FOWLER asked :: 1.	How many private ears are there now in connection with the Intercolonial Railway ; what are their names, and what was their cost to the country during the past year ?
2.	Were any new cars purchased by the Railway Department last year ?
3.	Where Is the private car usually used by General Traffic Manager Tiffin, at the present time ? What is the object of the present trip upon which it is being used ? And what did it cost to provision and fit out the said car for this trip ?
4.	How many trips have been made by this car during the month of April, 1903 ; where to, at what cost, for what purposes, and who were the occupants ?
5.	What was the total cost of this car last year ?
6.	Is it ever used for the private purposes of members of Mr. Tiffin's family or friends ? If so, when and how often ?
7.	Is it usual for officials of the Intercolonial to have private cars maintained and run at the expense of the country, with which to make trips, either for pleasure or on private business ?
8.	Is General Manager Tiffin out of Canada now ; and if so, who is performing his duties in his absence ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS ANI) CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :
1.	There are three official cars connected with the Intercolonial Railway.
2.	No.
3.	He is in the western states en route to the Pacific'coast, returning through British Columbia and the North-west of Canada. The object is for the restoration of the traffic manager's health, who occupies the car. As the traffic manager pays this himself, I am not able to answer the question.
4.	In the traffic manager's absence, it is not possible to answer this question.
5.	Five hundred and sixty-one dollars and twenty-one cents.'
G. The department is not aware that it is, although it is possible some members of his family may occasionally accompany him on his official trip's. In the traffic manager's absence I am not able to say when or how often.
7. The official cars are as it were offices on wheels, in which to transact official business ; private business of course can be , transacted in them without detriment to the ' public service.
8: The traffic manager is in the United States now, but is within telegraphic communication with his staff whenever such communication is desired in the interests of the service. He may be, therefore, said to be performing official duties during his absence on the ground of ill health, the officers under him reporting to him and receiving his instructions.
73}


IMMIGRANTS REFUSED ADMISSION.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILSON-by Mr. Ingram-asked :
1.	How many immigrants have been refused admission into the Dominion of Canada, and for what causes or reason, for the years 1901 and 1902 ; and up to 1st of April, 1903 ?
2.	How many immigrants have been deported to the country from which they came, and at whose expense, and for what cause ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock).: The preparation of the answer to this question involves considerable time, as it is necessary to communicate with immigration agents in different parts. Therefore it will not be possible to answer it today, or for some days.


Mr. SPROULE.: Stands.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Stand.


IMMIGRATION FROM JULY, 1902, TO APRIL, 1903.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILSON-by Mr. Ingram-asked :
How many immigrants arrived in Canada from the 1st of July, 1902, to the 1st of April, 1903 ? What were the nationalities of said immigrants ?	.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock).: The total number was 61,-G78, of whom 27,171 were from the United Kingdom ; 24,487 from the United States ; and 10,020 from other countries. Total Gl,678. The following are the details :


VIA OCEAN PORTS.
[Stage Direction]
Arabian	 43
Armenian	 109
Austrian	 385
Australian	 34
Bulgarian	 5
Belgian	 148
Bermudian	 1
Bohemian and Moravian	 144
, Bukowinian	   1
Crotian and Slovenian	 1
Dutch	 35
Doukhobors	 7
Egyptian	 1
French	 449
Flemish	 5
Finnish	 1,226
German	 1,012
Galician	 1,663
Greek	 122
Great Britain-
English	 13,634
Welsh	       227
Scotch	 2,203
Irish	 1,107
West Indians	 ll
Hebrew	   1,669
Hungarian	   767
Italian	 2,263
Moldavin	 1
Maltese	 2
Mennonltes	 24
Newfoundlanders	 196
New Zealanders	 2
Polish	 149
Persian	 40
Roumanian	 294
Russian	   2,999
Servian	 1
[Stage Direction]
Slovak	 24
Spanish	 7
Saxonians	 12
Swiss	 39
Syrian	 765
Scandinavia-
Danish	 141
Icelandic	 326
Swedish	  1,082
Norwegian	 477
Prussian	 5
Turkish	 34
United States citizens	 96
Nationalities via ocean ports. 34,524
Returned Canadians	 2,468
Tourists	 199
From United States at Winnipeg and outports	24,487
Total	61,687

Mr. HEYD asked :: 1.	W'hat was the quantity used, and average cost per pound, respectively, of manilla, sisal, or other hemp, in the production of hinder twine, in the Kingston penitentiary, 1901-2 ?
2.	What was the cost, or allowance, for labour, and also for any material other than hemp, used in the production of said twine ?
3.	What was the average price per pound at which the twine was sold ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) :: [DOT]
1.	28,376 pounds of manilla; average price
86 per cwt ; 122,000 pounds of sisal; average price, $6.28 per cwt.	,
2.	Convict labour, $896.32; other material, $839.68.
3.	5* cents.


TRANSLATORS OF DEBATES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARKE-by Mr. Monk-asked :
1.	Who is the owner of the building, No. 461 Sussex street, Ottawa, used as an office by the translators of debates ?
2.	What is the rent paid therefor per annum?
3.	How long have the translators occupied the said building ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 1.	The property in question is rented by the government from Mr. D. V. Ranger.
2.	$420.	'	'
3.	Since 1893.


THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-ADDITIONAL CAPITAL.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MeCREARY asked :
1.	Has the government any information of the manner in which the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has applied the sum of nine million dollars, which, under the terms of the Act of last session, 2 Edward VII., chapter 4, was to he expended for rolling stock ?
2.	Has any part of that sum been expended in pursuance of the Act ; and if so, how much ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair):: 1. Yes.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: 2. Yes. The following amount lias been expended in pursuance of the Act referred to, accordiug to a statement furnished by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company,- First. Rolling stock actually acquired and
paid for.
Locomotives	
116	$2,143,068.85Sleeping, dining, parlour, official and pay cars	
20	250,798.77Passenger, tourist and colonist coaches	
30	248,237.66
Baggage, mail and express
cars	
14	62,600.91Conductors vans	
133	113,623.47
Box, stock, refrigerator and
furniture cars	
3,839	3,484,578.67Flat, coal and ore ears..	..	546	434,925.S6Other cars, snow ploughs,	&e	50	223,785.22Total	$6,961,619.41
Second. Rolling stock now under contract and in course of construction and which will be delivered during the ensuing summer.
Locomotives	
120	$2,593,048.00Sleeping and dining cars.. ..	14	273,465.00Passenger coaches	
39	396,050.00
Box, stock and refrigerator
cars	
357	422,875.00Flat, coal and ore cars	
1,455	1,048,200.00

Grand total	$11,695,257.41


LIGHT-KEEPER-PEGGY'S COVE, HALIFAX COUNTY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax)-by Mr. Monk-asked :
1.	Has George Swinehammer, of Peggy's Cove, Halifax county, been dismissed or relieved from his position as light-keeper ? And if so, for what reason ?
2.	For what length of time h$s he occupied the position of light-keeper ? And does the government propose giving him any retiring allowance, or other compensation, in view of his advanced age and long service ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond Prefontaine):: 1.	George Swinehammer, keeper of the light at Peggy's Gove, Halifax county, was relieved from his position as light-keeper on account of his advanced age, and loss of activity consequent thereon. At the time Mr. Swinehammer was released, he was 74 years of age, and the department was informed officially that on account of the want of physical activity and intelligence consequent upon his age lie was not adapted to act as keeper of a light of that order. It appears that lighting apparatus of a very improved character was adopted at this station, and that for the want of the qualifications mentioned an explosion occurred, and the apparatus was partially destroyed. The department was forced to the conclusion that in the interest of the public service it was necessary to appoint a younger and more active man.
2.	air. Swinehammer bad been in the public service since 1883. He was not eligible for superannuation on retirement. The salary was $300 per annum, and no eompen-

sation or allowance lias been made him as lie could not receive the superannuation allowance on retirement. The department, might, if necessary, consider, after gathering information on the matter, whether it would be expedient to make some allowance in this case.


TRENT VALLEY CANAL.
Sir.  H. A.@: 
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: There is a good deal of difference in the width of the canal as well as in the length. Mr. Rogers calculates .upon a width of 50 feet at the
bottom, and Mr. Maingy upon a width of only 22 feet.


Mr. WARD.: I am quite aware that there is a large difference in regard to the size. At the same time, it seems to me that this difference does not justify in any way the enormous discrepancies! in the estimated quantities of earth and rock excavation. I happen to know that only at the town of Port Hope is there any rock excavation whatever, and Mr. Rogers, in his report, simply expresses a doubt as to whether there would be any large amount of rock excavation to be done in getting rid of the height of land a short distance from Rice lake. It is mere guess work, so far as I can see. I do not think he could have made a careful survey, or his quantities would have been expressed in a different manner. If the Minister of Railways will examine Mr. Rogers' report in regard to estimates, he will find that they are lump sums in every instance ; for instance, 175,000 cubic yards for rock excavation, and 5,500,000 exactly for earth excavation. If you follow the estimates all through you will find that they are just lump sums. On the other hand, if you take Mr. Maingy's report or Mr. Rubidge's report, you will find they are figured right down almost to cents. So I think in that regard also there ought to be some inquiry made into that report.
Now, there is another matter which I would like to bring to the attention of the minister, and that is the levels of the great lakes. It seems to me that is one of the most important matters to consider before finally completing this canal. I have taken the trouble to obtain from the Marine Department a chttrt of the lake levels during a large number of years, particularly of Lake Ontario ; and I also have in my possession a chart of the levels of Lakes Michigan and Huron. In examining the one issued by the Marine Department, I find the levels of Lake Ontario almost exactly corresponding in the years I have mentioned. Now, the lake levels have been going down almost steadily since 1838, until in 1895 the Ipwest level was attained by the great lakes that probably ever existed in the history of the country, so far as the memory of man runs, at any rate. In 1895 the level of the great lakes went down about six feet below the level of 1838. In the chart furnished by the Marine Department I find that during the last four years, up to 1901, the level of Lake Ontario has been almost exactly the same, being one and a half foot above the level of 1895, which was the lowest that was ever attained. The low levels of 1899 and 1900 were only six inches above the level of 1895. Now, a gentleman from Port Hope who examined the Trenton harbour last year found that there were only seven feet of water in that harbour, so that if the level of 1895 were to be again attained by Lake Ontario, you would only have

about six feet or six and a half feet of water in the harbour of Trenton. I think the hon. minister knows that the harbour of Trenton has a rocky bottom, and that a great deal of blasting and dredging would have to take place and that in all probability the canal would be perfectly useless if the level of 1895 were to come again. I just call this fact to the attention of the hon. minister because it seems to me that it is a very important thing ; if he does grant this survey, and I think he has given us a good deal of encouragement in that direction, that the lake levels should be taken and that the harbour of Trenton should be most carefully examined. At Port Hope we have a harbour with about fourteen feet of water-perhaps not that depth all through the harbour, but there is a depth of from twelve to fourteen feet all through the harbour. It seems to me that, taking all these things into consideration, we are asking very little in requesting that this comparative survey should be made, and I trust the hon. minister will take it into his most serious consideration and do what I at least think is manifestly in the interests of the country.


William Humphrey Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the question of the construction of the Trent Valley canal is one of very great interest to the county of Simcoe and to the different counties that abut and adjoin Lake Simcoe. I am not particularly concerned from a local point of view as to whether this canal shall be built, by way of the route suggested by the hon. member for East Durham (Mr. Ward), or whether it shall follow what has in the past been discussed as the probable route, namely by way of Trenton, but, what we wish to see, in the county of Simcoe, is the work speedily taken up and pressed with greater dispatch than it has been since its commencement. I think in this House a great deal of prejudice has been engendered against this work owing to the fact that hon. gentlemen are not conversant with the details of it and I think ifc is to be regretted that the people of Peterborough and those living along that portion of the route where work has been done to a considerable extent have not interested themselves in having other hon. members of this House to go over the route as the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals did a few years ago, and become thoroughly conversant with the wants cf these localities and see how they will be met by the construction of this canal. This system of waterways, extending from Lake Ontario to the waters of Lake Huron, is some 200 miles in length and of this great distance of 200 miles, as I understand, some fifteen or twenty? miles only call for what might be termed, actual canal wbrk. Along the line of the work there are very many large lakes, one of which is Lake Sini-coe. Then, above Peterborough there i^ Stony lake, Pigeon lake and other lakes, the names of which I have not, on the tip Mr. WARD.
of my tongue at the present moment, but I know from having been on them that they are also waters of considerable size. One protest that has been made against the expenditure of money on this canal has been based upon the fact that the boats that would ply on it would be too small to be successful from a business point of view, i may say that the report of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, containing the report of the engineer who is in charge of the work, proves that there is, to-day, over the sills, a depth of six feet of water and when it is considered that boats built with fiat bottoms and having a depth of six feet will carry from 20,000 to 25,000 bushels of grain it must be plain that it would be a considerable factor in the carrying trade of the country. I know that a few years ago an American company that had the choice of erecting an elevator at Buffalo or at a Canadian point, erected an elevator at the town of Midland, where I reside, having a capacity of a million and a quarter bushels and one of the most modern elevators on the great lakes. As a proof of this I may say that it elevates 20,000 bushels per hour which is a fair indication that it must be a very modern concern. I have it from gentlemen interested in the erection of that elevator that one fact that induced them to place their business at Midland was that they would ultimately have water competition from Midland to Montreal. We have spent an immense amount of money on our canal system, and while I am not going to say a word against the amount of money that has been spent on the St. Lawrence canal system, it must be remembered that this Trent Valley canal will be a great feeder to and factor in the St. Lawrence canal system, because, whether the outlet on Lake Ontaro shall be at Trenton or Port Hope, the ultimate destination of the grain carried in vessels will be the port of Montreal. Now, let us look at what has been the effect already of the construction of the locks that have been completed so far. I find from the report of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals last year that no less than 5,185 lockages were made by vessels doing business on these upper lakes. It must be remembered that so far they have not yet had the advantage of being able to go out on Lake Huron or Lake Ontario and that therefore no through trade has been done. Yet, these figures show an increase of 857 lockages over the preceding year. I may say that the hon. minister, when lie went up there a few years ago, and I had the pleasure of being present when he was on that trip, we were surprised to find the class of boats engaged in the trade on the system because there are steamers plying in those waters that will accommodate as many as 400 passengers. It therefore goes without saying that if these locks can accommodate boats of that size, they can also accommodate vessels carrying a considerable amount. of grain.

As a local work for the counties of Simcoe, York and Ontario, it will be of great interest, and let me, in passing, refer to one fact. I am informed that the large cereal concern which has been established at Peterborough was to a certain extent attracted there owing to the fact that it has that magnificent water route which will ultimately give it connection with the waters of the Georgian bay and enable it to bring the vast quantities of grain that it consumes from the upper lake ports to Peterborough and when I say that at that point this one concern is consuming no less than
15,000	bushels of grain per day, and that the expectation is that it will double that in a few years, the importance of this work will be appreciated.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: What amount did the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) say it was consuming ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Fifteen thousand bushels a day, and it is estimated that with its capacity it will consume in a very short time no less than 30,000 bushels per day.
On the basis of 30,000 bushels a day, the aggregate would be 10,000,000 a year, which gives a very considerable amount. At present the bulk of that grain is being brought from different points in Ontario, and I know that in the towns of Barrie and Orillia they are purchasing quite a lot of grain and carrying it down by rail. If the canal were constructed they would bring that grain by barges through to Lake Simcoe and the farmers would get the benefit of the decreased rate of transport by water route. At Peterborough there has been established a very large cement concern, and I am told that in establishing these works at Peterborough the company anticipated the construction of this canal. Last year some 15,000,000 bushels of grain arrived at Midland and let me ask, what would it mean to the carrying trade of the whole Dominion if the canal were constructed clear through to Lake Huron ? It would mean that at Midland they would have the benefit of competition between the canal and the railways, and instead of having two large elevators at Midland other elevators would be erected to the great benefit of that town and district. There has been a great deal of delay in the work on this canal. I notice from the report of the Minister of Railways and Canals page 168 that some of these sections have not been dealt with in a very energetic or businesslike manner. The report says
Section 2, Peterborough-Lakefield Division.- The contract for this section was awarded to Messrs. Corry & Laverdure on May 2t, 1896, and the time for completion was November 1, 1897, nearly five years ago. As I reported last year that from the mode of operation adopted by this firm it is difficult to say when the work will be completed. There was only about a month's work to be done by an ordinary force of men at the beginning of this season, but at
the present date it will'still take three months or more to complete the work at the present rate of progress. There is still a considerable amount of concrete to do in connection with the hydraulic lock, as well as excavation in the prism of the canal below the hydraulic lock ; finishing up the sodding, protection lining,
trimming slopes, &c	
The steel work of this hydraulic lock (No.
1, Peterborough) was awarded to the Dominion Bridge Company. Owing to the delay caused by the contractors for the concrete work of the lock not being completed no steel work (except some of that which is to be embedded) has been put in place. A rigid inspection of the main hydraulic presses by tests have been gone on with for some months. Considerable trouble^was experienced in getting the cast iron ram sections cast of the proper consistency and compactness, but this was finally accomplished. Nearly ail the steel work has been prepared and stored on a lot adjoining the bridge works, which has been leased to the government for that purpose.
During this summer while passing along there, I have noticed that the work was much further advanced than last year, and I am told that probably by the first of September the large steel lock will be in running order. When that section is completed boats will be able to go from Balsam lake clear through to Heely's Falls, a distance of about 130 miles. Another feature, and not an unimportant one, of the completion of this canal, is, that it will make that district probably one of the most frequented tourist resorts on the continent of America. At first sight it may not look a business proposition to spend government money for the purpose of improving the facilities for tourist travel, and if that were the only object I would not commend it. At the same time those who live in districts which are frequented by tourists from year to year, know what a profitable trade results. One has but to look at the Thousand Island resorts to see that. In the district of Muskoka, which is not by any means a fertile district, no less than 20,000 people annually visit the beautiful lakes that abound in that region, and these tourists being transient and the number being constantly replaced during the season by others, there is in consequence an enormous outlay of money for the advantage of the proprietors of hotels and of steamboats, as well as the farmers who sell their products for the supplying of these tourists. I would point out to the minister that the different counties that adjoin Lake Simcoe arc. greatly interested in this work, particularly in view of the fact that this large concern at Peterborough to which I have referred uses a great deal of grain, and if the farmers had the opportunity of shipping to Peterborough by water it would be of considerable benefit to them. But the great benefit this canal will confer on the Dominion at large, is that it will be an important feeder to the St. Lawrence canal system. Millions of bushels of grain would be shipped by this route. At the present time the merchants and shippers in Barrie,

Orillia, and other towns have only one competing line to ship over on that division of the Grand Trunk Railway. The section of the Trent canal which is now under contract from Balsam lake to Lake 'Simcoe, has apparently not progressed with much celerity in the past. I understand that the construction of the high level bridge at the crossing of the Midland railway division of the Grand Trunk Railway near Gamebridge has been undertaken by the Grand Trunk Railway Company. The work of filling in has been going on pretty fast during the spring and winter and I have noticed that the contractors have a dredge on the ground which I assume will facilitate the work. I would point out to the minister that all along this system of lakes and rivers the movement of freight will be fairly rapid, because I am informed by those who profess to be conversant with it, that three or four of these barges each carrying from 20,000 bushels can, with the aid of powerful tugs, be moved at the rate of six miles an hour. That will be a great improvement over the locomotion in vogue on the Erie canal, and the evidence goes to show that the Erie canal has been a great factor in reducing the rates between New York and Buffalo, and that it has had the effect of compelling the railways to carry freight at a much cheaper rate than they otherwise would. X hope that during the present summer the minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) will press to a conclusion the contract for the section between Balsam lake and Lake Simcoe. I understand that the lock at Kirk-field is similar to the hydraulic lock near Peterborough, and in regard to the lock at Lakefleld I trust that the work will be proceeded with more expeditiously than at other points. Perhaps, when the minister replies, to the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Ward) he will let us know as to the prospect of an early completion of the work at the different points to which I have referred. With reference to the motion made by my hon. friend from East Durham, I can only say that while we in the county of Simcoe are not greatly concerned which route shall be adopted, whether the outlet shall be by Port Hope or by Trenton, we are concerned in this, that there should be a rapid completion of the work connecting the waters of Lake Huron with the waters of Lake Ontario. When the work is completed, and it is bound to be, in view of the money already expended, and in view of the fact that the minister looks with a kindly eye upon it, we should have the satisfaction of seeing vessels carrying from 20,000 to 30,000 bushels of grain loaded at Midland and passing through this canal and in due course to Montreal.
I have noticed this year, what has been most annoying to me as a Canadian, and must be equally so to other gentlemen, that day after day large vessels have been leaving Port William and Port Arthur and going to Buffalo. That means that American vessels,


William Humphrey Bennett: American lines of railway, and American steamship companies are to-day carrying Canadian grain from the North-west; and it is due to the fact that when the grain arrives at Buffalo, it has not only the advantage of competing lines of railway going to New York, but the additional advantage that they are kept in check by what I must call the almost obsolete system of the Erie canal. Yet that system will not be able to compete with the Trent Valley canal system, either as to the size of vessels or as to cheapness of carriage. I hope to hear from the minister that these works which I have referred to will be proceeded with more rapidly than in the past, and that we should have the satisfaction of seeing an early completion of this important work.


Mr. SAMUEL HUGHES (North Victoria).: Those of us who have been advocating a speedy construction of the Trent canal for a number of years are delighted to find such places as Port Hope, represented by my bon. friend from East Durham (Mr. Ward), and other important places on Lake Ontario, entering into competition to secure the terminus of the canal. We had a somewhat uphill fight for some years to convince the hon. members of this House of the advantages of this canal, not only to the localities through which it passes, but to the whole of Canada. That day, Sir, has happily gone by. We now find our good friend the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) thoroughly impressed with the necessity of pushing the construction of this canal to a speedy completion ; and not a voice is raised on either side of the House in opposition to the construction of this great work. The hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has ably placed before the Plouse and the country many of its advantages ; but X may lie permitted to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to this fact as an incentive to hasten its completion. At present the farmers of western Iowa can land their grain in T.iverpool at five or six cents a bushel less than the farmers of the Midland district of Ontario, owing to the difference in freight rates, by reason of the water route from Chicago to the seaboard via the Erie canal, keeping down the rates on the railways. I can assure Hie Minister of Railways and Canals that when the Trent canal is completed, if in the immediate future we will erect monuments to him and his predecessor.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: One'will be enough.


Samuel Hughes: I do not mean post mortem monuments ; but we will put up tablets in his honour all along the route of the canal, for pushing it through to speedy completion, and increasing the value of the grains raised by the farmers of that district at least five cents a bushel. We have a number of important towns along the route of the

canal. Bordering- on Lake Simcoe we have the magnificent towns of Barrie, Orillia and Beaverton, all of wliicli will be greatly benefited by being provided with communication with tbe outer world. Passing on, we come to the village of Kirkfield, the village of Fenelou Falls, and tbe town of Lindsay, in tlie county of Victoria, and the fine little town of Port Perry, in tbe county of Ontario. Then, in tbe county of Peterborough, we come to tbe village of Lakefield and tbe town of Peterborough, and in tbe county of Northumberland, tbe village of Canip-bellford. All these towns would be greatly benefited by the construction of this canal. Then, there are many water powers along tbe route of tbe canal, which would bring in new industries now unthought of. It has been very properly stated that this is not a canal In the ordinary sense of the term, but rather a series of inland lakes connected by locks. Beginning at Midland, there is a cutting of a few miles to Lake Couclii-ching, where we have open water across Lake Simcoe. From Lake Simcoe the route is already under construction ty the Talbot river to Balsam lake, with little cutting, and one hydraulic lock at Kirkfield. Across Balsam lake we have a stretch of open water for about eight miles to Cameron lake ; and across Cameron lake for three miles brings us to Fenelou Falls. There are two locks already constructed connecting Cameron lake to Sturgeon lake, through a river about half a mile long. Across Sturgeon lake there is open water for twelve miles to Bobcaygeon, where a lock is already constructed. Then we come to short river about half a mile in length, with rocky banks, so that the speed of vessels need not be retarded. This brings us to Pigeon lake, where we have another stretch of open water for about twelve miles through Buckhorn lake. Here there is a lock already constructed in a rocky cutting leading to Deer lake and Lovesick lake. Thence, by two locks at Burleigh, we come to Stony lake ; and through Stony lake we have open water for five miles, until we enter the navigable waters of the Otonabee river, connecting, by a magnificent hydraulic lift-lock at Peterborough, with the waters of the lower Otonabee and Rice lake.
My hon. friend from Bast Durham (Mr. Ward), I regret to say, seems to consider that Mr. Rogers has given a report to the minister which is not based on most reliable data, in that opinion I am satisfied my hon. friend is entirely mistaken. I am convinced that any report which Mr. Rogers would give will be found absolutely correct. Following the Trent river route, which is the natural waterway, it will be found that the main difference between the estimates of Mr. Rubidge and Mr. Rogers consists in the fact that Mr. Rogers proposed following the waterway itself, damming the river and utilizing its shores for locks, while Mr. Rubidge intended to cut the canal right
through the solid rock all the way. Mr. Rogers' proposition is that the waterway itself should be utilized and locks should be built here and there at the end of the dams, as they might be required. My personal sympathies would all lie in favour of the Port Hope route, and I would be very pleased if its advantages were such as to commend that route for adoption, but while my hon. friend points out that it is fifty miles from the mouth of the Otonabee river to Trenton by the river way and only nineteen miles to Port Hope, he leaves out of consideration the fact that it is thirty miles from Port Hope to Trenton, and that at least twenty-six of these are along the open waters of Lake Ontario, where you would be storm-tossed by every wind on the lake. That, however, is a matter of detail, which I am satisfied will be settled by the engineers. I shall not dwell at length on this proposition, but confine myself to stating that from the point of view of the benefit to the counties through which this canal will pass, it cannot be equalled by the construction of any railway that could be proposed, and for the benefit to the Dominion, as a through route for the output of the grain of the North-west, it would save a distance of three hundred miles as compared with the route away round by the river Detroit. In this respect it should commend itself to shippers. No doubt it has to meet the opposition of shippers who already have their lake barges constructed to ply between Kingston aim Montreal. The Montreal Transportation Company do not favour this project because their steam barges are constructed for the purpose of navigating the Welland canal, but there is ample freight for all our western and eastern ports.


Henry Alfred Ward: They are going to Buffalo now.


Samuel Hughes: Yes. Even when this canal is constructed there will still be ample employment for these enormous barges, each carrying from 200,000 to
250,000	bushels of grain from Tort Arthur to Fort William and even from Duluth and Chicago. Even by this canal the barges could transport that grain right to the city of Montreal. The same barges that load the grain at Midland could carry it without breaking bulk, directly to Slontreal. It is a fallacious notion to my mind-it lias been so proven by the best engineers-that canals, in order to be successful and profitable should be of enormous depth. We had a fad in Canada a number of years ago, in favour of twenty-one feet canals. That is a very fine theory, but when you consider the enormous cost of constructing such a canal and of constructing the necessary steel barges required on a canal of that depth, and then consider that the return trips will, in all probability, be light, you will find that the most profitable canal-the one that will carry the greatest quantity of grain barges and any class of freight at good prices-is the average canal. Why the Erie

canal liad a depth of only four and a half feet on the sills and has not yet much improved on that. Yet that canal has built up immense cities all along its route and proved of such value to the farmers and business men of the state of New York that they would not sacrifice it for the enormous sum of $30,000,000. Although the railway companies have made all sorts of efforts to obtain control of that canal and remove it as a competitor, the people of the state of New York will not give it up and are taxing themselves annually enormous sums to preserve its integrity. Until recent years, it was only four and 'a half feet deep and eighteen feet wide. Now, the Trent canal will have a depth of eight feet of water on the sills and will carry barges capable of carrying from twenty-five to thirty thousand bushels of grain each over its entire route. A steamer from Midland harbour, carrying 250,000 bushels of grain, could unload its cargo in! ten barges which could be towed down to Montreal, without any trouble, by one or two tugs. It is not necessary that any argument to point out the necessity of building this canal should be advanced. Our only desire is to urge on the Minister of Railways and Canals, the necessity for the immediate completion of this great work. I know that his mind is now thoroughly seized with its advantages. It would be good enough to put in the supplementary estimates, a sum which would complete the route between Lake Couchich-ing and Midland harbour, in order that hi another year there may be ingress to and egress from the waters of the western lakes, and in another year put in a sum to complete it to Tort Hope, I am satisfied that he wouid confer on the Dominion in general, and the province of Ontario in particular,
* one of the greatest benefits that can be imagined.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I have no objection at all to offer to the passing of the motion moved by my hon. friend from East Durham (Mr. Ward), provided it be passed subject to the understanding that we shall only bring down such papers, reports and documents bearing on the subject as have not already been laid before parliament. My hon. friend is naturally interested in the particular locality lie represents and anxious that when a final selection of the route be made for the outlet of this canal into Lake Ontario, Port Hope may be the one chosen. And in urging upon the department and the House his conviction that Port Hope is the proper point, my hon. friend is only discharging his duty to his constituents. But I am not sure that he has done quite justice to the engineer of the department in the criticism he has cast on that engineer's report. If I understood him correctly, he pointed out that Mr. Rogers, the engineer, had made a very much larger estimate of the quantity of earth excavation than Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
would be required than had been previously made by the engineer who first made the survey. I think he said that Mr. Rogers' estimate was something over five million, while the other was not much in excess of two million. I think the hon. gentleman had not present in his mind the fact that the locks which would be required along that work are very much larger indeed than were contemplated when the first survey took place. The first lock was seventy feet in length, thirteen feet in width and four feet in depth. The present lock would be one hundred and thirty three feet in length, thirty-three feet in width and six feet in depth.


Samuel Hughes: With a possibility of eight feet.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not say that. I am speaking of the engineer's estimate, and his calculation was based on six feet. But the hon. gentleman can see that there is room for probably all the difference he pointed out and because of which he criticised the report of the engineer. I cannot say that the engineer may not have a preference in his own mind for the Trenton over the Port Hope location, but I think it would not be fair to assume that such judgment is based upon other than a conviction reached after proper inquiry. He may or may not be right. Other engineers may or may not agree with him. Still, all parties who may have made different reports may have reached their conclusions after exercising their best judgment and brought honest minds to bear upon the problem. I do know, however, Mr. Speaker, that there is admittedly some considerable difference between what would be the probable cost of construction by the Port Hope route and to the cost of construction by the Trenton route. But there has always been the objection raised by the officers of my department, that after getting to the lake, you are obliged to travel a considerable distance-some forty odd miles-along a very exposed shore of the lake, with these small barges.


Henry Alfred Ward: May I correct the hon. gentleman ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. I speak now,	of course, of barges
going to Montreal.


Henry Alfred Ward: May I correct the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) on one point ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. Certainly.


Henry Alfred Ward: It is only twenty-six miles to the Murray canal-that is, to the headland going into the Murray canal-from Port Hope-not forty miles.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. The fact that there is a further
distance before you get to the islands is a fact that cannot be ignored. There is

exposure there, and this onght to be considered in the opinion ot some of our engineers. They do. regard it seriously, and it is a fact that has to be allowed for in determining which of these two routes should be chosen. I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Ward) that a delegation waited upon me in the department some weeks ago, and after I had heard, I must confess, a very businesslike presentation of the whole case from these gentlemen, I felt it was my duty to consider it. I have been led to the conclusion that an officer of the department should be sent, separate from any who have heretofore gone, and I have already made the selection of the officer, and he lias instructions to make this survey, a survey that will cover not only the Port Hope route but the other, so that the judgment of the engineer who made the one survey may be applied to the other as well. So, I hope my hon. friend will feel that the question he urges upon us has not been overlooked.
My hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has glanced at the subject generally but has made particular reference to the progress of the work now under contract, and has asked me to indicate, if I could, how soon these works will he brought to a conclusion. I may say that I did not supply myself with data as fully as I should have done this afternoon if I had known that the whole subject of the Trent valley canal was coming up in this debate. But I am in a position to say that, while the works have not been prosecuted by the contractors as speedily as we would have desired, and as we expected, I think there is some justification and excuse for the delay. 1 am quite certain that the works remaining to be finished will be carried forward with all possible despatch. My hon. friend intimated that it was two years since I visited the canal. I made it my business to pass along thel route of that portion of the canal where works were in 'progress last fall, and I saw the contractors who were working and heard their explanations as to the delay. I am bound to say there was some excuse for the delay. But X have been given to understand very positively that so far as the Brown & Aymer contract is concerned that the work to Lake Simcoe, will be done this fall. As to the other part, the only thing that remains to be completed is the hydraulic lift. We are pushing that forward, I think, with a great deal of despatch, and we hope that, inside of a couple of months, we shall have the lift in operation. We think it necessary to have that lift in operation before we enter into a contract for the erection of the second-in fact, before we make any plans of too definite a character. There may lie some improvements which will be suggested by the actual operation of the lock. The hydraulic lift is a new thing in Canada. I understand there are only two or three in operation anywhere. We hope to have the one at Peterborough in such shape that it can be tested and ready for operation inside of two months. Then, if its operation is generally satisfactory, we shall be in a position to call for tenders for the one at Kirkfield, and we will do so without any delay. The completion of the work through to Lake Huron will involve quite a little expenditure of money. My hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) appeals to me to ask for money and have this work prosecuted, I would like him to give us credit, which we are certainly entitled to, of having carried the work on with a moderate degree of despatch, at all events, as compared with the methods adopted by our predecessors.


Samuel Hughes: Oh, oh.


The MINISTER OE RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, we have spent a great deal of money every year, more than was spent previous to the advent of the present government to power. Money we spend very reluctantly, and always in fear that the volume of our expenditure will be criticised by our friends in opposition. When an appropriation is asked the government have to have in mind that hon. gentlemen on the other side will add all these sums together and will claim that our outlay, capital and consolidated, should be lumped together and that these large figures should be presented to the country as showing how extravagant and wasteful we are and how utterly indifferent to the adoption of economical methods.
Now we must have all these things present in our minds. My hon. friends, if they do not succeed in doing anything else, may succeed in alarming us by their strictures for making these large outlays. Now, having all these things in mind, seeing that we have done so well in the past, and that we are struggling along moderately well at present, I hopes my hon. friends will not press us too strongly to make too large expenditures in the future. I shall be glad to see the work go on with the customary speed. When it is completed, I think that, though it may not in some respects fulfil all expectations which have been formed by some hon. gentlemen opposite, still I am satisfied that it will turn out to be useful, and will prove valuable to the locality through which it passes. 1 agree with the hon. member for East {31m-coe (Mr. Bennett) that a more attractive, a more charming section of the country for tourists could not possibly be found than that which will be traversed by this canal.


Samuel Hughes: I hope the conscience of the Minister of Railways and Canals will not check him any more in any other expenditure he makes, than it does on this expenditure on that Trent canal.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: Allow me to say, as one who visited the town of

Peterborough and vicinity lasts year, that I had occasion, with some of the citizens of the town, to examine the lift loch and to hear a great deal about this canal. From the information which I gathered I became convinced that the completion of this canal will not only be very useful to the locality through which it passes, but it is likely to become an important feeder to the trade of Montreal. Taking that view of it, I wish to say that so far as we are concerned in the east, we will be ready at any time to vote the necessary money for the completion of that great and important waterway. I am sorry to hear the Minister of Railways and Canals express so much fear of the criticism which might result from that expenditure. We are always ready to approve an expenditure of that kind made in a proper manner. During the election in Maisonneuve a short time ago, I heard the Minister of Marine and Fisheries tell us positively on many occasions that the whole question of transportation, (o use his own expression, from the Yukon to the Atlantic Ocean, was going to be placed under his immediate control and taken out of the other departments. When I heard this declaration I felt the greatest confidence that the qualms of conscience which are moving the minister would not appear in the case of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries who was then coming forward for election.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Perhaps it would be only right for me to say, in view of the fact that I have always opposed this work, that I have changed my mind since I have had an opportunity lately' of examining a portion of the canal and ascertaining more about the local conditions, and the value of it, than I have heretofore known. My judgment of the canal now is that it will be a much more valuable highway of commerce than I was ever inclined to give it credit for. It is true that the depth is not great, and is not intended to be, when it is completed. That is the reason why I always supposed that it could not be much of a highway for the purpose of carrying through freight or grain. I still think that as a through line it will not be of any great use in carrying grain, for instance, to Montreal or other eastern markets, because I think that the transhipments in two different places will increase too much the cost of carriage, and it might be carried a much greater distance around without transshipment at about the same cost. But it will be a valuable highway of commerce, for the locality in bringing in grain which could not otherwise be brought in. I need only refer to the one industry at Peterborough, which is to my mind of great importance to the country, that is, the cereal food mill they have established there, and which is destined to use a large amount of grain when running to its fullest capacity, Mr. MONK.
which it cannot do to-day on account of the inconvenience in bringing in grain. I was told by' the manager of this mill that when running at its fullest capacity they would use 10,000,000 to 13,000,000 bushels of grain per year, and they could even increase it to 30,000,000 bushels of grain yearly if they had the convenience which they ought to have to bring in grain and tranship the products with the greatest facility and at the least cost. That is only one of many establishments along the route of that canal that would be served if the canal was finished, as it ought to be. Now the fact that Ontario does not supply the grain required for the needs of this establishment, a large portion of it must come from the North-west. As it comes down the lakes and reaches the nearest port on the lake, there is only; one transhipment before it gets to the mill. At the mill it must be unloaded and manufactured there, and of course the products must be reloaded again. Whether the wheat is being converted into flour, or whether the wheat, oats or barley are being. converted into the other cereal foods that the institution is intended to manufacture, the grain must come largely from the North-west. It has to be laid down there and manufactured and transhipped, and to do that cheaply this canal is very much required; and until it is finished these industries are much hampered in carrying on their important operations. I have always opposed it because of the heavy expenditure; but I believe there would be a compensation and a return for that expenditure. I believe the country' would be amply justified in making the expenditure at an early date because we cannot get these industries established a moment too soon, othewise trade will drift into other channels.
There is to my mind another important advantage which will accrue from the completion of that canal. All the heavy lines of goods, the metal lines, such as nails and machinery of every kind that are taken from Montreal westward, could be carried through that canal much cheaper than they could be carried by' railway. The canaj will not only be a. valuable highway for the various towns along the route of the canal, and on the Georgian bay as well, but it will be a great aid in keeping down the freight rates of the railways. If it was built at the present time it would reduce the freight rates on the railways to those inland towns to a very large extent, and the saving upou the cost of freight would be an important item, not only to the people handling the goods and to those establishments that are manufacturing grain as well, but to the consumers in the locality where these goods must be used. Another respect in which I think it will be valuable is in that it. furnishes us with an example of the utility of these lift locks. Although that may not be a new invention in Canada, it has

hitherto been an untried thing in Canada, and it seems to me that this lift-loek at Peterborough is going to solve many important canal questions for Canada. It seems to me that it will work all right and if you can lift a vessel forty-five feet you can just as well lift it sixty-five, or seventy feet. We ought to have it tried to ascertain whether it will do all we expect or not, so that we will knowi whether it can be used on other routes as well. For these reasons I am in favour of finishing that caual. I think the government would be amply justified in making the expenditure necessary to finish it and I for one feel that they would be doing a good work not only for the locality but for the country generally by the expenditure of money for the purpose of finishing it.


Henry Alfred Ward: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say that I regret very much if I went beyond the limits of fair criticism in speaking of Mr. Rogers' report. I had no intention of doing so, but I simply referred to it to compare his estimate with the different estimates contained in Mr. Rubidge's report which is the only one we can compare it with. Mr. Rubidge's report, as you well know, recommended a five foot canal and Mr. Rogers' report upon the Port Hope canal was for a six foot canal. That should be taken into consideration also. In so far as the large quantity of earth excavation is concerned which the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) referred to-rlie lost sight of the fact that the greater part of that excavation was going through the height of land. It was not in taking out the earth for the locks, but the greater portion of it was going through the height of land. You must bear in mind also that Mr. Rogers estimated that the level of the land with the lake was 4J miles from the lake instead of 2i or 3 miles as in Mr. Maingy's report, and I know as a matter of fact, that the land dips from the level of the lake again about 3 miles from Rice lake. Therefore, I think there is some ground for tlie criticism I made. It is simply a matter of figures and I had no idea whatever of reflecting upon Mr. Rogers. In regard to the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes), he has presented the argument of the Peterborough people, the sole argument, I think, used by the opposition which has taken place since we have been advocating the Port Hope route. That is the open lake argument. Perhaps my hon. friend is not aware that from Cleveland, barges constantly go down to the mouth of the Brie canal at Buffalo, 100 miles, whereas, there is only open lake, as far as this end of the Trent valley canal is concerned, from Port Hope to the headland going through the entrance of the Murray canal, a distance of 26 miles.


Samuel Hughes: Would my hon. friend (Mr. Ward) allow me to say that I
entered into no discussion whatever of the merits of the two routes.


Henry Alfred Ward: Still, the hon. gentleman uses that argument. It is the stock argument of the opponents of the Port Hope route. The open lake should not make any great difference and for this reason :	I have
been informed by mariners who have been all their lives on Lake Ontario that they would very much prefer going down by the open lake from the outlet of the canal, to going down by way of the Bay of Quints. That is a matter in regard to which I have been spoken to on several occasions by different captains of vessels. Now, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals lias referred also to the deep waterway, and it seems to me that in view of the fact that at no very distant day Canada will require a deeper waterway than five or six feet, it will be well for the government before going on and filling these two gaps in the canal to consider whether it would not be wise to make the canal eight feet at once instead of six feet. In regard to that I have also the evidence of some shippers at Kingston, who tell me that the 8,000 bushel barges which would lie the capacity of barges going through a five foot canal could not possibly go down the St. Lawrence and pay. They would have to tranship at Kingston in any event and the grain or whatever cargo they carried would have to be placed in larger barges. There is a freight rate of one and five-eighths cents a bushel from Kingston to Montreal and it would be very much cheaper to tranship at Kingston than to send these small barges down the St. Lawrence. If a deep waterway were constructed and vessels of the capacity of an eight foot canal were to go down it would be quite easy for these large barges to come from Kingston to Port Hope and tranship there ; in fact, they could do that even if only 8,000 bushel barges were used. I do not think, therefore, that the open lake argument is one which can be used against the completion of the canal by way of Port Hope.. I would therefore urge upon the hon. minister again that the matter of the water levels of the great, lakes ought to be taken into consideration before anything is done and that the harbour of Trenton ought to be carefully surveyed so that it can be seen, whether, as a matter of fact, if the level of the water went down to the point reached in 1895, it would absolutely shut up the canal for the time during which the water remained at that level.


Mr. E. GUSS PORTER (West Hastings).: Mr. Speaker, there does not appear to be any serious difference of opinion in regard to the advisability of the construction of tills waterway. This is a matter which had its inception with the Conservative party I in power before the present government


Edward Guss Porter: 
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Might I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Porter) to what particular appropriation he refers.


Edward Guss Porter: I cannot give you the exact figure, Sir, but in looking over the appropriations from year to year, I notice that $300,000 has been appropriated for the Trent valley canal, and that the expenditure has been far below that amount. It appears to me that if it were necessary to appropriate that amount, it should be necessary to expend it.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Whether you could properly expend it or not.


Edward Guss Porter: At all events, I find that in the year preceding a general election both the appropriation and the expenditure is largely increased, and that I complain of.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Porter) is very anxious apparently that the canal should proceed slowly.


Edward Guss Porter: I am very anxious to have the canal constructed, because I believe it to be a work of very great benefit to the country at large. I do not think it is of any advantage to this country to have the government trifling with this matter as they have been trifling with it. In conclusion, Sir, I again strongly urge upon the government the importance of determining at an early date, the route of this canal. And I trust that in the interest of the country they will see that it is completed as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

233S

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BELL moved for :
Return showing persons, not being members of the Senate or House of Commons, or members of a provincial government, or employees in the regular service of the Intercolonial Railway, to whom free transportation has been given over the Intercolonial for the years ending June 30, 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I would be very glad to bring down the return asked for by the hon. gentleman so far as it is possible to do it. The custom in the department from time immemorial has been to destroy the passes down to the last year. I think probably the rule has continued, so that we should only be able to furnish those for the year 1902.


Mr. BELL.: I should be satisfied if the minister brings down what he has.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I may say to my hon. friend the returns for the previous years were uniformly brought down and handed to individual members who moved for them. They were not laid on the Table. I could give my hon. friend the names of one or two members to whom they were handed, if he wished to refer to them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Copies of all correspondence which has taken place between the Dominion government, or any member thereof, and the government of Ontario, or any member thereof, regarding the proposed reduction in the representation of Ontario to this House, under the Redistribution Bill now before parliament.-Mr. Sproule.
Copies of all correspondence between the city of Vancouver and other persons, and the government of the Dominion, or any member thereof, relating to grant or lease of False creek.-Mr. Earle.
Return giving:-
(a) The names of those in the employ of the government of Canada who went to South Africa in any of the contingents, or the South African constabulary, classified by corps.
(b.) The names of those who received, in whole or in part, the pay of their office as servants of the government, in addition to their military pay, classified by corps.
(c.) The names of those who were restored to positions under the government upon their return from South Africa, classified by corps.
(d.) The names of those who were not reinstated in their former or any positions on returning to Canada ; with the reasons for such non-employment, classified by corps.
(e.) The names of those who have appealed to the government for reinstatement, ant! been refused re-employment ; with the reasons for such refusal.-Mr. Hughes (Victoria.)
Copy of the correspondence, reports, and any other documents, in the Department of Public 74
Works, in respect of the claim of Amable Paradis, of Whitford, Alberta, for the services of a ferry boat and transportation upon the same.- Mr. La Riviere.
A list of all permanent and temporary officials of the several branches of the Department of the Interior ; date of appointment, and their salaries, on the first day of July, 1902. Also, a list of the permanent and temporary officials of the Indian branch of that department, on the 1st day of July, 1896. And also, on the same date in 1902 ; with same particulars as to date of appointment and salaries.-Mr. LaRiviSre.
Copies of all papers, Orders in Council, letters and correspondence, between the government, or any member thereof, in reference to land granted to the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway Company ; and also, all letters, papers, correspondence, and Orders in Council, if any, with the Saskatchewan Land Company, in reference to their acquisition of the land granted to said Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway Company. And also, as to their acquisition of the even numbered sections within the territory granted to said railway company.-Mr. Roche (Marquette.)
Return showing the rates over the Intercolonial Railway for live stock, coal, lumber, and for freight under classes 1-10, between Stel-larton and West River ; and between Stellarton and Antigonish, and between Stellarton and Pic-tou Landing, at present in force. Also, showing rates for same classes between same points in 1897.-Mr. Bell.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL (West York) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 20) to amend the Weights and Measures Act. He said :	The object of this Bill
is to provide an authorized can for the sale of milk in the towns and cities throughout the Dominion. As is well known milk is sold by the can throughout the Dominion. In Ontario, it is an understood rule that eight gallons should constitute a can of milk, and the custom has been for the farmers to contract with the dealers in the cities or towns for one, two or three cans as they may be able to supply. The dealers, as a rule, furnish the cans, and, as there is no law to define how many gallons a can of milk shall hold, it has become a practice to make the cans a little larger and a little larger, until, at the present time, there are hardly any cans in use in Ontario that hold less than from eight and a half to nine gallons. The farmers are obliged to fill the cans, otherwise they will be docked. Thus you will see that the farmers are furnishing from one-half to two-thirds of a gallon of milk for every can more than they should and more than they get paid for. This may seem a small thing, but when you recollect that, in Toronto alone, it is estimated that three thousand
[Stage Direction]


cans of milk are brought in every day, this extra quantity of from one-half to two-thirds of a gallon becomes a serious thing indeed for the farmer. They have complained a good while about this injustice, but without steps having been taken to remove the grievance. Last session, I had the honour of introducing a Bill upon the subject, but it was too late and could not go through that session. So, I have reintroduced the measure this year. This Sill does no injustice to anybody. It does not interfere with the present cans' or with any cans. One may make cans to hold eight or ten gallons or any quantity he likes; all that the Bill provides is that when a farmer sells a can of milk it shall mean that he sells eight gallons. In the province of Quebec this Bill has met with great favour also. I have a letter from Mr. Robert Ness, President of the Milk Shippers' Association. He says ;
Howiclc, April 2, 1903. Archibald Campbell, Esq., M.P.
Dear Sir,-Your favour of 1st duly received and noted. I am very pleased to see you have taken up this question. Our people have spoken quite often of the tendency of the milk vendors to increase the size of the can. Some of them have even refused taking it if the can is not filled. In most cases the can holds jnore than the measure. I am certain the association of which I have the honour to be president will heartily approve of your Bill on every point. I hope you will succeed in getting it made law. If we agree to supply so many gallons of milk, the right measure is all that should be required. If we can assist you in any way don't be backward in asking us. Thanking you for favour.
I am yours,

[Stage Direction]
President Milk Shippers' Association, Montreal, Que.
I sent Mr. Ness a copy of the Bill and asked him for his approval. I am sure that this is a Bill that should receive no opposition, for it only provides in the case of milk what is provided in the case of other commodities. In every other commodity, parliament has settled what shall be meant by certain terms. For instance, if you sell a man a bag of potatoes, the law says that ninety pounds must be furnished. I see that in the province of Quebec, if you sell a bundle of hay or straw, timothy hay or clover hay, the law says how many pounds shall be in the bundle. If you sell a barrel of flour or a barrel of salt, or a bushel of wheat, or oats, or barley, or peas, the law says just how many pounds you shall furnish. Here is a commodity that has been sold for many years, the sale of which is a matter of great interest to the farmers, not only in the province of Ontario, but in every other province, but there is no law to determine what the measure shall be. So 1 hope the Bill will meet with the approval of the House. The Bill is very brief. The first section provides :
Mr. CAMPBELL.: When milk is sold by the can, the can shall be considered as equivalent to eight gallons, and the half can to four gallons.
This does not interfere with tlic package at all. As I say, the can may be made to hold any quantity. The Bill merely provides that when a man has contracted to deliver a can of milk, the delivery of eight gallons shall fill that contract, or, half a can, four gallons. The second section reads :
Milk cans shall, when presented for verification to any inspector of weights and measures, be inspected and stamped with their capacity as then determined.
And, for this there is a fee, provided for as follows :
The Governor in Council may make a tariff of fees to be paid for inspecting and stamping milk cans, but the said fees shall not exceed one and one-half cent per gallon.
1 move the second reading of this Bill.


Sir.  H. A.@: Id. KEMP (East Toronto). I would inquire of the Minister of Inland Revenue, (Hon. Mr. Bernier) before I speak on this Bill, if the government! intend to take this matter up. I understood the hon. minister intended to look into this Bill and see what had better be done.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon, M. E. Bernier).: As I understand the Bill, it is proposed as an amendment to the Weights and Measures Act. It has no reference to the affairs under my department, unless parliament designs to adopt a new standard. This Bill provides that when milk shall be sold by the can, the can shall be considered as equivalent to eight gallons, and half a can to four gallons. The law now recognizes as measures of capacity the following :	Bushel, half-bushel, peck, gallon,
half-gallon, quart, pint, half-pint, gill, and half-gill. The Bill proposes to add another measure which shall be equivalent to eight gallons. That is to say a certain can shall be manufactured supposed to contain eight gallons, or half a can four gallons. I wonder how that plan will work unless the vendor and purchaser agree to accept these measures. The Bill, as I read it, does not make that can a standard measure, but a substitute for it. Under these circumstances, I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. Campbell) will reach his object unless parliament creates a new standard. If that new standard is created, all my department will have to do will be to inspect the new measures of capacity. I have considered, as I have already informed my hon. friend, that this Bill relates to matters coming within the scope of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I will ask him to wait until the Minister of that department (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) is present.


Mr. A. E. KEMP (East Toronto).: If it is the intention to hold the Bill over I will wait until it comes up for discussion. I presume my hon. friend will be willing to

have it lay over at the request of the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue.


Archibald Campbell: This is the last day we may reach it. If we do not go on with it now, we may as well throw it up for the session. If there are any objections, I think we might hear them now.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: If the Bill is laid over at the request of my hon. colleague, the Minister of Inland Revenue, owing to the absence of my hon. colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the government will be obliged to facilitate this discussion later on. It would not be fair to cause it to be laid aside and then shut it out at a later day.


Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: Since the Bill is before the House, it may be as well for us to consider its effects now, even though it may come up again at a later day. I quite approve of fixing a standard for milk cans. That has been ft live question within a radius of Toronto for a number of years, but I am at a loss to interpret the present Bill, and fear that a good deal of trouble might follow, if adopted in its present form. The clause reads :
When milk is sold by the can, the can shall be considered as equivalent to eight gallons and the half can to four gallons.
As I understand this clause, it can make no difference how much milk there is in the can. Whether it contains seven or nine gallons, it is to be considered as equivalent to eight gallons.


Archibald Campbell: The number of gallons will be eight. It would not be a can if it contained anything less.


David Henderson: I fail to see that the Bill states positively that the can must contain eight gallons, neither more nor less. No matter how much milk there may be in tlie can when delivered by the fanner to the dealer, it is to be considered as equivalent to eight gallons, even though the can should contain seven gallons or nine gallons. It seems to me that the Bill is badly worded, and that some change should be made in the wording in order to prevent the possibility of misunderstanding. I do not wish to oppose this Bill, because I think it is of a kind that is called for, and attempts along this line have been made in past years to secure legislation of this character. But if we are to pass legislation at all, we should make it so definite as to avoid any possibility of dispute. In the second clause there is no light thrown upon the first, because under it a can of any size could be inspected and stamped by the inspector of weights and measures. The second clause reads :
Milk cans shall, when presented for verification to any inspector of weights and measures, be inspected and stamped with their capacity as then determined.
74i
A can may be inspected as containing nine gallons or seven gallons. If inspected as a seven gallon can, the purchaser knows that it cannot contain more than seven gallons, but it may contain less,' so that there is no protection to the purchaser. It will be necessary to have a standard can to which, after a lapse of two years, all cans should conform. At present the milk cans are of varied capacity. Some are seven gallon cans and some are eight and more than eight. If the hon. gentleman would provide that after a certain time, sufficient for the present cans to be worn out, only cans of a fixed capacity of eight gallons could be used, this Bill would be more effective. There would then be no dispute possible, as the can would be a standard measure, just the same as a gallon or a half gallon or a quart measure. I do not make these observations for the purpose in any way of hindei'ing the passage of a Bill of this kind, because I know that my own constituents are interested in having such a measure become law, but I would like to have the Bill passed in such a way as to avoid dispute.


Albert Edward Kemp: I have had several letters from different parties asking me to fin<j out whether this Bill is going to be endorsed by tlie government, or be withdrawn, so that they might know whether it will be necessary for them to come to Ottawa to protest against it. The size of the milk cans now in use vary from two to forty gallons ; and while some of the milk in the country is sold by gallon, the greater portion of it is sold by weight. To the cheese and butter factories it is sold by weight. Those who have spoken to me in opposition to the Bill say that they are willing that a law should be passed providing that the milk be sold by weight, but they protest very strongly against this measure. I hope the hon. gentleman will be willing to let the Bill lay over until the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue has heard these deputations, because a great deal of money has been invested in all these various sized vessels for conveying milk. If a standard can should be adopted that would cause great loss to those who own the cans now in use. In 1892 a measure of this kind was adopted and in 1898 it was cancelled, and a new regulation put into effect. That regulation I have before me. The Minister of Inland Revenue has read from that regulation the standards used for measuring all kinds of liquors. The intention of this Bill is to make another standard, and is impracticable. These cans are carried into the cities by railways and wagons, and after the first trip or two they become indented and their capacity is less. That portion of the present law which was read by the Minister of Inland Revenue provides that:
No measure of capacity, of which the sides or bottoms are indented, battered or knocked out of regular form, will be admitted to verification.

Therefore, if these cans were taken to the inspector to be verified, after they had become dinged, he would refuse to verify them. In other words, the'standards of the country are not to be used for the purpose of conveying commodities, they are to be used in the most careful manner. A man having a measure is supposed to take the greatest care of it and put it in a place where it will not be dinged or indented, in consequence of which the capacity of that measure might become impaired. I think it is impossible to use a measure of this kind for the purpose of conveying any commodity. But if it is absolutely necessary to make a law regulating the sale of all milk, let the law be made to sell it by weight, as is already done in many parts of the country. At any rate, I want to say to the Minister of Inland Revenue that I fully expected an opportunity would be afforded whereby I might be able to notify those who have been opposing the Bill of a date upon which they could wait upon the minister in regard to this matter. Another objection to the Bill is made on account of the excessive fees which would be charged for verification, sixteen cents on every can, and that sixteen cents would be good only so long as the can remained undinted and in its original shape. As I said before, if this Bill becomes law it will cause great loss to those who own cans. One of the largest dealers in milk in Toronto at the present time, who handles one-sixth of the whole product in the city of Toronto, buys its milk by weight, and does not depend altogether upon the size of the can. The seller of milk knows exactly what he is going to get for a certain weight of milk. A gallon of milk, as we know weighs ten pounds, eighty pounds of milk would be eight gallons. There is a measure now recognized on the statute-book, that is called a bushel measure, which contains eight gallons. I trust that the hon. gentleman will yield to the wishes of the Minister of Inland Revenue and leave this matter over until we have more time to consider it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not see why there should be any urgent need for the Bill at all. It seems to me that we are better off now than we would be if the Bill passed. In the event of this Bill becoming law, you would only have two sizes of cans. Now the quantity of milk that a farmer can furnish from day to day varies a good deal. He must either send cans partly filled, or else have more than one can. Why not be able to use any sized can you like, and sell your milk by the gallon ? Let the buyers offer to purchase as they like. The farmer is not obliged to sell execpt by the gallon or as he agrees to. The standard is a gallon, then why not use the standard we have ? There is no farmer who has a number of cans but will find that the quantity of milk he has to sell varies from


Albert Edward Kemp: day to day, scarcely two days alike, owing to the different kinds of food he gives his cattle, and the many other causes that affect the milk supply. Many farmers always send what they can spare, as many gallons as they can spare. There would be no objection to have all the cans stamped with their capacity, an eight gallon can stamped as a measure that will hold eight gallons, and a four gallon can stamped as a measure that will hold four gallons, and so on. In selling milk by gallons, there can be no injustice done to either the farmer or the purchaser. When that is done, the farmer can use the can that is most convenient for him to use according to the supply of milk he has on hand. On the other hand, if you adopt the other standard of selling milk by the pound, that is perfectly fair to both the buyer and the seller. In that event, there is no need of having any provision as to the size of the can at all; use any can you like, you are selling the milk at so much a pound, the farmer is paid for the number of pounds he delivers, and no more. It seems to me that no farmer can be injured in that way, and the purchaser always knows what he is getting, and what he is paying for. I think we would only be increasing the evil by making another standard, and we would be increasing the inconvenience to the farmer whose quantity of milk that he has to sell varies so much from day to day.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR (South Leeds).: I was going to say to the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) who introduced this Bill, that I would like him to look after the interest of the consumer of milk. This Bill is evidently intended to apply to the seller of milk who sells in large quantities, and to the purchaser of large quantities, or to the consumer who purchases his milk by the can. In our town, and I presume it is the same all over, the milk vendors sell milk by the can or the quart, they deliver a quart can at your door every morning. .


Archibald Campbell: We don't (interfere with that at all.


George Taylor: Certainly, but when the milk is sold by the can the can must be considered an equivalent to eight gallons. Where will my hon. friend provide a can that is equivalent to a quart or two quarts ? That is like what he wanted to do to help the market gardeners; it is merely to make the milk vendors believe that he is going to do something for them. As the Minister of Inland Revenue stated a few moments ago, we have a standard to-day fixing what a can should be. Now a farmer in the country sends in his can of milk to the retailer, who sells to the consumer by the gallon, or by the pound, if he chooses to make a bargain to do so. But he cannot say, this can contains ten gallons, or fifteen gallons, he says :	The can contains so
much. If the purchaser, when he comes to

measure out that can of milk, finds that it does not contain the quantity the farmer sold it for, the latter is liable to a penalty by the old Act. Every person who sells a less quantity than the Act provides for is liable to punishment. Therefore I see no necessity for this Bill at all. It will work injuriously to the seller and the consumer placed on the government orders. I want to ask tl;e Minister of Finance a question, that is drawn out by the hon. gentleman who introduced this Bill. The Minister of Inland Revenue asked that the Bill might lie over until the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in whose department this Bill belongs, would be present. The hon. member who has charge of this Bill says this is the last day that we will have an opportunity of dealing with public bills and orders.


Archibald Campbell: It might be.


George Taylor: And the Minister of Finance said that on account of the government asking that this Bill should lie over, they would see that an opportunity was given to have it brought up, or perhaps placed on the government Orders. I want to ask the Minister of Finance in what position that arrangement will place these Bills that are not printed. I see here a Bill introduced by the hon. member for St. Lawrence, Montreal, (Mr. Bickerdike) in reference to cigarettes, which is not yet printed in English or French. That Bill has not been printed and as this is likely to be the last day for the consideration of public Bills and Orders and as that Bill is nearly at the bottom of the Order Paper it is very liable not to be heard this session if it is not taken under the government's wing. This being the case is it the intention of the government to place the Bill of the hon. member for Montreal (St. Antoine) amongst government orders ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) is hardly correct in stating that this is the last day for the consideration of Public Bills and Orders. It may be that Mondays may be taken, but it has not yet been determined upon, and if there are a number of Bills on the Order Paper which have not then been reached that would be a very fair reason why the government should not take Mondays. I think thq hon. gentleman may very well assume that there will be another opportunity of dealing with those Bills which are on the Order Paper.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. (Hon. A. G. Blair).: Mr. Speaker, I do not profess to know whether or not it would better serve the interests of the milk trade that a further provision such as my hon. friend (Mr. Campbell) points to in this Bill should be adopted. However, It does appear to me to be somewhat difficult to set up a standard. If you are going to establish a new standard it must be
a standard which will have a distinct name, and call for a distinct quality. As to whether this is feasible or not, I think the question is of such intricacy that it is one upon which the proper officers of the proper department might very well decide before my hon. friend presses this Bill for further consideration. We would scarcely be in a position to-night to make much progress with a Bill as it stands at present. Then, if it is desirable that a standard measure, to be called a can, shall be legalized, I would take it that my hon. friend would need to change very materially the phraseology of the Bill, because, I quite agree with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) when he criticised the language of the first clause and pointed out that the use of the words which says that a can shall be equivalent to eight gallons is something which is altogether too vague and indefinite to mean anything, such as parliament could intend that it means, or such as would be at all operative. To say that it shall be considered equivalent to a certain quantity is not certainly providing that it shall actually contain that quantity. It may be alleged to be a statutory declaration but as long as you have a can and that can shall be equivalent to eight gallons you can sell whatever you can get a person to take from you. At all exents, I think the Bill should be closely looked into from the professional, ministerial and legal standpoints.


Mr. A. A. WRIGHT (South Renfrew).: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say just a word in reference to this Bill. I think it is a very desirable thing that something of this kind should be passed. In reference to the remarks from my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Kemp), I just wish to say this : He says that he is afraid that a large number of cans which carry milk to creameries and cheese factories would become useless because they would not hold the exact amount of eight gallons. I would just like to say that cheese factories and creamaries do not buy milk. They take the milk from the farmers and make it up into cheese and butter for so much a pound. Here is another point in connection with the transportation of cream and milk on the railways. This matter came up at our board meeting on Friday last. We had quotations from the express company stating that they would take an eight gallon can a certain distance for so much. But in every case they wished it to be distinctly understood that these cans should hold eight gallons, no more, no less. If we had a law passed whereby one of these cans would be measured and stamped so that we would know that it held exactly eight gallons we would get over one of those difficulties that we have in connection with the express companies and railway companies in carrying our cream to the factories. There is another class of dealers who retail milk in cities and towns. They buy

their milk at so much a can. It is a question very frequently whether the can holds eight gallons or not. Sometimes it does and sometimes it does not. They would like to have the can stamped so that they would know when they buy a can of milk they buy a certain quantity. I think this Ilill is a good measure, and as to the statement that cans might become useless if it passed, I think there is no difficulty in that respect. I do not think there is anything in that at all.


Archibald Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to allow this Bill to stand until the lion. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) is present. I may say that we are not in this Bill establishing a new term. Some hon. members think that we are establishing a new term, the fact is that milk is sold now by the can. Three thousand cans a day come into the city of Toronto alone. What is a can of milk ? Can anybody tell ? Is there anything on the statute-book to tell how much a can contains-whether it is four, or six or ten gallons ? Nothing at all. This Bill may possibly have been a little more clearly worded, but the idea is a good one. It is to determine, when a man buys a can of milk, how much he has to get. The farmers are losing on every can of milk they sell in Toronto and Montreal from one-half, to two-thirds of a gallon. This may be a simple thing for some people but it is an important tiling for the farmers of York, Peel, Halton and all around the city of Toronto. I am surprised that the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) has raised objections to this Bill, when I consider the number of milk cans that come in from this county. The farmers of this county want this Bill to become law. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) I am sure, is in favour of this Bill because his constituents are largely interested in it and it will do no harm. The Bill simply determines what must be the quantity which a man must deliver when he sells a can of milk. If a can holds ten gallons, there is a can and one-fourth, if it holds nine gallons, a can and an eighth, if it holds seven gallons, seven-eighths of a can. There might only be four gallons, and if so, there is a gallon measure established by the department and you can easily determine whether there are four or five gallons in the can.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the object of providing another standard measure ? Why is it not just as well to say seven gallons to seven-eighths of a can ?


Archibald Campbell: Seven gallons ?


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman says that if a can holds seven gallons it will be the equivalent of seven-eights of a can.


Archibald Campbell: They are now using the can as a measure.


Mr WRIGHT.: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is nothing to compel the farmer to sell by the can.


Mr. COCHRANE.: How are the farmers losing.


Archibald Campbell: Because the dealers make the can, and they make it to contain eight and a half gallons and sometimes more, and the farmer loses half a gallon on each can. I do not wonder at the horn member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) being opposed to this Bill because the milk dealers in his constituency are up in arms against it. They are getting an extra half gallon on every can without paying for it. I am speakiug for the farmers who sell the milk, and I say they should not be obliged to furnish any more milk than they are paid for.


Edward Cochrane: If I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) aright the farmers up in his section of the country do not know when they get a can whether it contains eight gallons or eight gallons and a half. They must be as simple as they were when they voted for the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) under the supposition that lie was a protectionist. The man that is silly enough to order an eight gallon can and to take a can that contains eight gallons and a half deserves to be fooled. But what can be said of the hon. gentleman's electors when they were fooled into voting for him as a protectionist, and now he comes down here with his soul overburdened for the farmers interests and every time he gets a chance to vote for protection he votes against it.


David Henderson: I desire to make a personal explanation. The hon. gentleman from West York (Mr. Campbell) expresses surprise that I should! oppose this Bill. I wish to state that 1 emphatically declare that I do not want to oppose the Bill. He simply put that language into my mouth. I was not opposing the Bill by any means; I was simply endeavouring to get it into proper shape.


Mr. R. BLAIN (Peel).: I am in favour of some change in the law as it now stands in respect to the sale of milk. In the county I have the honour to represent there is very general complaint that the farmers are not properly treated by those who purchase the milk in the large cities. I think, however, that the hon. member (Mr. Campbell) has not been careful enough in the preparation of his Bill. The Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) gave him a very heavy rebuke when he told the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) that his Bill was open to very grave objection, and so I will reserve my remarka until the Bill comes before the House in proper shape. In the meantime I would suggest to the hon. member (Mi-. Campbell) that he should consult with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) and the Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier) so that he may draw up a proper Bill,

because I believe that this is a matter that should engage the serious attention of the government. There has been very great complaint for many years, especially in the neighbourhood of Toronto, and it is my opinion that parliament should take means to protect the honest farmer who is every day selling very large quantities of milk in -the centres of population.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know enough of the particular circumstances of the case to express an opinion as to whether or not it is necessary to have a further standard of quantity. To judge from the speeches of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) he is seeking to establish a new standard of quantity for the sale of milk, but his Bill does not at all make provision for that. If he means what he says, then the language of his Bill falls very far short of its object. The objection taken by the Minister of Inland Revenue and the Minister of Railways and Canals is well founded in that respect. 1 thought the hon. gentleman was not going to permit milk to be sold except in eight gallon cans, but apparently lie does not intend that, although the Bill sounds as much like that as it does anything else. Assuming that the principle of the Bill is good, my hon. friend (Mr. Campbell) will have to reconsider the wording of it very carefully, because in its present shape it would leave the law in a very much worse state than at present.


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

Mr. A. T. THOMPSON (Haldimand and Monck).: Mr. Speaker. During my absence from the House for a moment, a Bill standing in my name was called, and with the consent of the House I would like it to be taken up again. I refer to Bill (No. 24) entitled an Act to extend the Power of Loan Companies. It was threshed out iu the Committee on Banking and Commerce, and there was no objection taken to it. I wish to have the Bill considered in committee and read a third time.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: With the consent of the House that may be done.
House went into Committee on the Bill.
On section 1,


Robert Laird Borden: That section seems to go pretty far. I suppose it has been fully considered by the Committee on Banking and Commerce ; but suppose, for example, that a loan company wishes to invest in the stock of a mining company, it might be a pretty speculative matter. The only pre-requisite imposed by this Bill is that the mining company should be one incorporated by the parliament of Canada. I may say that I am a member of the Committee on Banking and Commerce, but I
must acknowledge my fault in not being present when this Bill was considered.
Mr. THOMPSON (Haldimand and Monck),
I may explain to my hon. friend that this clause is exactly the same as what appears in the General Loan Companies Act of 1899, with the exception that the word ' future ' has been inserted to make it applicable to future provinces that come into the confederation, as well as to existing provinces. It is not extending the powers of loan companies at all, but is giving them the same powers that companies incorporated under the Act of 1899 enjoy, nothing more nor less.


Robert Laird Borden: If it is a bad provision, the fact that other companies have the right to do the same thing does not make it any better. That might be a good reason for amending the Act to which my hon. friend has referred by limiting the powers of these companies. I would like to know how it strikes my hon. friend the Finance Minister. These loan companies are regarded as pretty safe investments for the estates of people who desire to be very secure ; and yet this provision gives them a very wide scope for the investment of their funds, and possibly parliament may have gone a little further in the Act to which my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) refers than it should have gone.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The question has been very fully considered in times past, and I think the legislation adopted in the General Loan Companies' Act was regarded on the whole as safe. When the effect of this Bill is simply to bring the companies of earlier incorporation under the same standard as those incorporated later, I do not see how we can refuse it, Whether, speaking generally, we have made the powers of loan companies too broad, is a fair subject for consideration ; but I do not think we should be doing wrong by putting all the companies on the same footing.


Mr. HEYD.: Does this apply to companies operating under a provincial charter ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No. I think the company referred to was operating under a Dominion charter.


Robert Laird Borden: We know there have been mining stocks in Canada which have dropped from 350 down to 12 iu the space of a few months. If one of these companies happens to have been incorporated under an Act of the parliament of Canada, this provision would permit a loan company to invest in it. I do not think that advisable, even if we have passed legislation to that effect. However, the government is responsible for this legislation, and I bring my objection now to the attention of the. hon. Minister of Finance, protesting, as far as I am concerned, that I do not think it

desirable to give a loan company tlie wide powers conferred on it by this section.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I may say that when the Act was before the committee a number of members opposed it strongly. Personally, I held the same view then that I hold to-day, that we were giving too wide powers to these companies. It was said that if we gave these wide powers to them other companies which had not equal powers would come and claim the right to have them ; and this is just what has happened. I agree with every word that has been said by my hon. friend beside me (Mr. Borden, Halifax), that we are giving powers that are altogether too wide.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am rather glad to find that view prevailing, because I admit that the tendency of our legislation in this House is to be rather too liberal to the companies that come before us. I would rather see their powers somewhat restricted instead of being extended. Now that the matter has been brought to my attention, I will have it looked into ; but in the meantime, I think we should give the same powers to one company that we have given to others, and, if there is to be a change, let the change apply to all.
Bill reported.


SUPREME COURT-AMENDMENTS.
Mr.  L. P.@: DEMERS (St. Johns and Iberville) (Translation) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 22) to amend the Supreme Court and Exchequer Court Acts.
Mr. Speaker, I feel it is incumbent on me to reassure this House. The judiciary is part and parcel of our body politic. To seek its overthrow, would be to shake the very foundation on which the state rests. On the contrary, to work towards its betterment and improvement is, to my mind, the part of good citizenship.
The uninitiated who witness the glorious uncertainty of the law, the endless conflicts going on among the courts and often among the judges of the same court, may be tempted to take the view that the best judgment is the quickest and that courts of appeal should be dispensed with. That is a serious mistake. Courts are apt to err in rendering hasty judgments, and that in itself is sufficient reason for having courts of appeal. Hence, to the question : What are the courts whose judgments should be final, Bentham unhesitatingly answers : None. But, if courts of appeal are a necessity, it does not follow that they may not become too numerous.
In a country like ours, where all members of the bar take up the same studies, where the skill and experience required by the judges in the various courts are similar, it cannot be argued with seriousness that the judges of courts of appeal, whatever be their jurisdiction, are necessarily superior Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
in knowledge to the judges of the superior courts.
If the former are called upon to revise the judgments rendered by the latter, it is solely for the purpose of avoiding mistakes due to hasty decisions. That is all, so far as clear cases are concerned. As regards doubtful ones, they cannot be ended too soon in the interest of the parties. That is a safe rule, to my mind, when private interests only are at stake. The question is a different one if you are dealing with the political and commercial interests of the country. The uniformity of the laws in this connection could not be imperilled without causing an injury to the people as a whole.
My conclusion, then, is that in the case of laws concerning the whole empire, the final decisions, from the nature of things, should rest with the highest tribunal of the empire : in the case of laws interesting Canada only, the decision of our Supreme Court should be final ; and when the citizens of one province only are concerned, the courts in that province should be left to deal with the case. In questions of law, as in matters of ethics, interest is the measure of actions. In cases where the Privy Council has been called upon to give its interpretation of the British North America Act, 1807, or of some of the Imperial Acts, its jurisdiction was always looked to with respect and favour by all classes. The provinces will not forget that the Privy Council has at all times shown itself the custodian of their rights, and it would be a great mistake on their part to endeavour to escape its jurisdiction.
But to call upon that tribunal to settle a petty dispute over a party wall, is dragging it out of its proper realm and lowering its prestige. The needy litigant who is forced "to appear before these far-away courts, rightly wonders at it, and the public mind is disturbed, as it was in the ease of (lie Canadian Pacific Railway Company vs. Roy. This morning's papers reproduce an article from a paper in London, going to say that the organization of the Privy Council as regards colonial matters is faulty and should be modified. That view is not a new one. Here is what Lord Brougham said as early as 1828, regarding the Privy Council :
It is obvious that from the mere distance of those colonies and the immense variety of matters arising in them, foreign to our habits, and beyond the scope of our knowledge, any judicial tribunal in this country must, of necessity, be an extremely inadequate court of review.
These remarks are applicable equally well to the Supreme Court. If after twenty-seven years' experience, I make bold to propose that the constitution of that court be amended, it goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that it is for me to prove that it has not come up to the expectations of its promoters. I shall do so with all the respect due to the powers that be, but at the same time with the freedom inspired by a strong belief.

Fur from me the thought of dragging into tills debate the distinguished members of the judiciary. Some papers have iu this respect committed excesses which the public conscience condemns.
My indictment will be short. I charge the Supreme Court of Canada with having failed to secure the confidence of the country.
Last year, ' La Patrie,' one of the important papers supporting the government at tiietime, stated: 'The Supreme Court, from the start, was unpopular in all the provinces.' For the last ten years, at almost every session of parliament, its abolition was sought, and one of the present judges, taking the moderate view which X now take, moved in 1881, to have its constitution amended.
The Supreme Court, as we know, was established in 1875. Although it was a government measure, several supporters of the party in power, considered themselves bound in duty to vote against the Act, particularly Mr. Becbard and Mr. Bourassa, both representatives of the counties which I now represent. In 1881, Mr. Girouard, who is today one of the judges of that court, introduced a Bill to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
That same year, Mr. Landry, now a member of the Senate, introduced a Bill for the abolition of the Supreme Court. And in 1881, Sir John Macdonald said:
Are we to appoint a certain number of judges ad hoc, taken from the judiciary or the bar of Canada, to complete the personnel of that tribunal, when cases from the province of Quebec have to be adjudicated on, or are we to adopt some other means ? I would not like to say, and if the Supreme Court is to be upheld, we shall have to find a solution that will do away with the dissatisfaction that prevails, at all events, among the French Canadians of Lower Canada.
In 1882, Sir Alexander Campbell introduced in the Senate a Bill to amend the constitution of the Supreme Court. Not only did the French speaking population find fault with that court, but the English speaking people as well were dissatisfied with it. Let me quote from the ' Legal News,' the organ of the English speaking lawyers. At page 140 of Yol. I., we read :
1	L. N., p. 140. The Supreme Court at present is looked upon with great distrust.
2	L. N., p. 161. This is saying nothing new to lawyers in this province, for it has long been evident that some of them, as well as their clients, are unwilling to take any case to Ottawa which can possibly be carried to England. The reason for this state of things is to he found in the dissimilarity of the law in the different provinces from which the judges have been taken, and the fact that the cases from this province are generally supposed to be left chiefly to the two members who were appointed from the bench and bar of Quebec.
4. L.N., p. 74. The dissatisfaction of Ontario and Quebec has manifested itself with considerable violence and some reason.
The province of Quebec was not the only one to complain. The province of Ontario
took the same position from the beginning, and up to this day, complaints have not varied. I may be permitted to quote the following extracts from the Canada Law Journal, the great law periodical of Ontario. Canada Law Journal, 1879 :
The profession, as a whole, have not that confidence in it which should appertain to a court of final resort ; for example, there is hardly a lawyer, in this province at least, who would not, on a question of Ontario law, prefer the opinion of our Court of Appeal, or even of one of our Superior Courts. ... It is also manifest, that the court, so far, has been a disappointment.
Canada Law Journal, 1880 :
There are some who think the best way to improve the Supreme Court would be to improve it off of the face of the earth. We trust some less heroic remedy may be found, though the court certainly has, both collectively and through some of its members, on several occasions and in various unnecessary ways, endeavoured to commit suicide.
Canada Law Journal, 1882:
The court has so far been a failure, partly owing to the inherent difficulties of our confederation, partly to the fact that the best talent has not always for some reason or other been taken advantage of, and partly owing to the difficulties and infirmities of a personal nature which we do not care to enlarge upon.
Canada Law Journal, 1892 :
The court has not in the past commanded the confidence of the public to the extent that the court of final resort for the Dominion should.
Canada Law Journal, 1895 :
May we be forgiven for venturing to suggest that the opinion of the profession is that, though the Supreme Court contains much valuable judicial material, it is not the strongest, does not command the greatest confidence.
Canada Law Journal, 1896, p. C4G :
This court has long lacked the confidence of the bar, both in the English-speaking provinces and in Quebec.
Canada I,aw Journal, 1902, p. 63 :
Speaking generally, parties do not go to the Supreme Court because they expect more careful consideration or better exposition of the law, but rather on the off chance of a reversal by another set of judges, gambling on the uncertainty of the law. Let it be remembered, however, that in the Supreme Court there are never more than two judges from any one province. To these two, or perhaps to one of them, is often in effect left the criticism of three, four or five judgments of men of at least equal attainments, and having special knowledge of the law affecting their various provinces. Is it likely that a reversal under such conditions would be considered a satisfactory adjudication ?
From tlie same periodical, same year, p. 178 :
We have not said and do not mean that the Supreme Court has not occasionally laid down the law more correctly than the courts referred to, hut we repeat w'hat we have already said.

that, speaking generally, the appellate courts in the various provinces stand higher in the estimation of their bars than does the Supreme Court of Canada. For example, what professional man can be found in Ontario who would prefer the opinion of the men composing the Supreme Court Bench to those now sitting in the Court of Appeal at Osgoode Hall.
Lord Dufferin, at the time our Supreme Court was established, referring to the Supreme Court of the United States, said :
Witness the respect and deference with which the chief court of the United States is quoted by British and European jurists.
The Supreme Court of Canada, on the contrary, continues to be looked upon, ns stated by the Legal News, 1 with great distrust.' Are we going to perpetuate this state of things ? Yes, if we persist in closing our eyes to the cause of the evil. This is to be found either in the inherent constitution of the body or in its constituent parts. I am aware that the judges of that court have often been attacked. But to my mind, Mr. Speaker, nothing is more unfair. The proof is this : The judges of that court have been chosen from among men who had previously distinguished themselves. To refer only to the province of Quebec, did any one ever doubt of the attainments of the Hon. Mr. Fournier, Minister of Justice, or of the Hon. Mr. Justice Taschereau, who is one of a family of jurists and who has written highly esteemed works, or of the Hon. Mr. Justice Gir-ouard, who had an extensive practice in commercial matters, and has made a reputation for himself through his legal writings ? Besides, to my mind, a peremptory argument is the following : the original members have been replaced and the body is still diseased. The ailment is therefore a constitutional one. The jurisdiction of the court in provincial matters is unwarranted. The right of the Supreme Court to deal with provincial matters is doubtful, if we consider only the wording of the law ; it is more so, if we take into account the spirit of the constitution. But there cannot be any doubt left if we look at it from the point of view of common sense : this does away with it entirely.
Section 101 of our Constitution reads as follows :
The parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, from time to time, provide for the constitution, maintenance and organization of a general court of appeal, and for the establishment of any additional courts for the better administration of the laws of Canada.
Do the words ' for the better administration of the laws of Canada ' apply to the whole sentence; that is the vexed point. Mr. Speaker. The section itself would lead us to doubt it.
True, the Supreme Court has decided this point in its favour in a case of the Saint Jean Baptiste Association vs. Brault, in which my colleague the hon. member for Ottawa appeared. But a judge should not Mr. DEMERS (St. Johns and Iberville).
be expected to decide against himself in his own case. The court by that judgment maintained its jurisdiction in matters of civil law' ; but what it was not in its power to do-what it is in the power of no tribunal to do-was to dispel the doubt existing in the minds of the people. We are familiar with that ancient custom whereby sovereigns attempted to establish their right to the throne by having the lords of the land to take the oath of allegiance. But that would not prevent the people from being in doubt. Opinion persists in spite of edicts.
Now% if it wras in order for two of the present judges, when members of this House, one in 1875, the other in 1881, to state their belief that this court was exercising usurped powers, I should be permitted in 1902 to entertain some doubt on the matter.
But when I take into account the spirit of our constitution, w'hich has for its mainstay provincial autonomy, my doubts are greatly strengthened ; and they materialize in the form of the following agreement, which, I think, will have some weight.
The legislative and the judiciary powers are correlated. There is no judiciary power that does not rest on legislative authority ; and no legislative authority that is not sanctioned by the judiciary power. Then, section 92 of the British North American Act enacts that in certain matters the legislative power will be vested exclusively in the provinces. Does that not signify that the judiciary power will be, as well.
But in one respect there cannot be any doubt ; it is this : the constitution of that court is repugnant to reason.
Oni that point I could not do better than to quote the opinion expressed by Mr. McCuaig, in the Hansard of 1881 : Mr. Mc-Cuaig said :
The opinion entertained by the majority of the inhabitants of the county I represent is this : We have a Supreme Court composed of six men, two from Ontario, two from Quebec, and two from the maritime provinces. As I understand the matter, the two judges from Ontario are not at all familiar with the laws of Quebec, while the two judges from the maritime provinces are not familiar with the laws of either Ontario or Quebec. Now, in Ontario we have an Appeal Court, composed of four judges of high legal attainments and well qualified to decide finally upon most every case that comes before them. But a case taken from our Court of Appeal, presided over by four of the best judges of Ontario, may be taken to the Supreme Court, and their judgment overruled by the four judges from Quebec and the maritime provinces, not at all familiar with our laws. That is not at all calculated to create any confidence in the decisions of the Supreme Court.
Last year, tbe House had the advantage of listening to an able speech from the hon. member for Hants in favour of uniformity in our laws. It is not my intention to refer to the debate which follow'ed. The inference which I desire to draw from it, is that laws differ greatly from one province to the

other. In case it was desired to bring about uniformity, would not advice be sought from jurists in each of the provinces ? Why V Because life is all- .rt. and the way that leads to knowledge is a long and winding one. To acquire a thorough knowledge of the laws in each of the provinces is a difficult task ; but that does not suffice. I am of opinion, said a latin writer that theory without prac-, tice will not give a perfect knowledge of law. The laws of the various provinces, in accordance with this principle, prevent any who have not practiced, their profession during a certain number of years, from exercising judiciary functions. Nevertheless, we have here judges who decide in last resort on laws which they have neither studied nor practiced.
And there arc those who wonder that such a court should be unpopular ! Some periodicals, some papers ask that the best men be appointed. They are losing their eyes to the light. The evil is apparent : if the judge is to apply the law, he should be familiar with the law.
It may be stated : If he docs not know the law when appointed, he will make himself familiar with it. Here is d'Aguesseau's answer to this :
Amid a variety of positive enactments, based on the customs of peoples, or on the sovereign will of the legislator, this body of laws has nevertheless its rules and principles. To become conversant with them, shall we wait for the crafty and interested party to lay before us fragmentary excerpts, skilfully selected and artfully arranged ; and shall the judge, whose part It is to instruct men in the law, be content with learning it in the pleadings of litigants ?
Lord Brougham, in ills great speech on judicial reform, on February 7, 1828, referring to judges in India, said :
In total ignorance of the manners, the customs, the prejudices, possibly of the language of those upon whose affairs and conduct he is to sit in judgment, and by whose testimony he is to peruse his inquiries, and very possibly equally uninformed of the laws he is to administer-he must be wholly dependent upon his pundit for direction, both as to matter of fact and matter of law.
Mr. Speaker, how are we to expect that, even in time, our brightest lawyers in the provinces, our magistrates, and all who have spent days and nights pouring over the study of provincial laws, and who, nevertheless, have to acknowledge their ignorance, will lay their case without reserve or reticence before a tribunal constituted as is the Supreme Court ? That was possible in times gone by when authority was supreme ; it cannot be expected to-day, when right is everything.
It is that lack of confidence which has been the incentive of the numerous attacks to which the Supreme Court has been subjected. Therefore, its constitution is defective.
The Bill submitted to your consideration
has for its purpose to make the Supreme
Court a Federal Court. The court will thus gain in prestige what it loses in scope. The clause suggested is taken from the constitution of the United States.
I quoted, a few moments ago, the opinion of Lord Dufferii regarding the Supreme Court of the United States. I.et me quote also from Alexis de Toequeville :	The Supreme Court, he said, is on a higher plane than any known tribunal, both as regards its powers and the kind of people over whom it exercises those powers.
Professor Dicey, referring to the Supreme Court of the United States writes :
Nothing in the institutions of America has exacted more admiration among foreigners than the position given under the constitution to the federal judiciary.
In consequence, several confederacies have followed suit; it will suffice to mention Mexico, Columbia and Switzerland. Were we to give our Supreme Court a truly federal character, what respect would it not command ? Courts of law being tribunals of compulsory arbitration, they should, like Caesar's wife, be above suspicion. Our Supreme Court at present resembles the sphinx, a monster, neither man nor beast, and which the passer-by seeks to avoid. I would have it resemble the shining statue of Memnon, which emitted harmonious sounds at sunrise, and to which would come all those seeking justice and truth.
Mr. Speaker, I move the second reading of this Bill.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Hon. H. G. Carroll, Kamouraska).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, as the hon. leader of the opposition understands French and was able to follow the speech made by the hon. member for St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers), I shall give in French the few remarks I have to offer.
The hon. member for St. John and Iberville, who just moved the second reading of the Bill, made a very broad charge against the Supreme Court : that of not having secured the confidence of the people either in Ontario or in Quebec. What proofs did he bring forward in support of his charge ? A statement in ' La Patrie ' to the effect that the Supreme Court did not command public confidence. Also quotations to the same effect from the ' Canada Law Journal,' since 1882.
That is a very hard charge to make against the highest tribunal in the Dominion ; and the only evidence in support of it are extracts from ' La Patrie ' and the ' Canada Law Journal,' a periodical edited by some one who likely has some old grudge against the court.
When the hon. member, after bringing forth that general charge, entered into particulars, some statements he made struck me. He likened the Supreme Court to a monster; hut at the same time, spoke highly of the judges who compose that tribunal.

They were, he said, honest, fair-minded men, eminent jurists, whose knowledge of the law was all that could be desired. I should have preferred if he had dealt with the living and left the dead alone. However, he thought fit to follow the opposite course. I regret that notice was not given me until this evening that this Bill was to come up for discussion. I would have been better prepared to reply to the eloquent and learned disquisition from my hon. friend, the member for St. Johns and Iberville.
His main contention is that the Supreme Court, as now organized, is unconstitutional. That is- to say, when the said court was established in 1876, that establishment was not constitutional. And in support of this statement my hon. friend quoted the opinions expressed by Judges Tasehereau and Mills, the latter to-day a judge of the Supreme Court. I have read Mr. Mills' speech, and I believe he does express doubts as to the constitutionality of that tribunal. So does Mr. Tasehereau, and so does Mr. Moss, now a judge at Toronto. Mr. Tascho-reau was at one time member for Montmagny in this House, and he is to-day a judge of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec.
But from what was said when the question came up for discussion, at the time of confederation, it is easy to find out what was the intention of those who inserted in the British North America Act a clause providing for the establishment of a Supreme Court. Sir John Macdonald spoke as follows :-
There are many arguments for and against the establishment of such a court, but it was thought wise and expedient to put into the constitution a power of the general legislature, that, if after full consideration they think it advisable to establish a general Court of Appeal from all the Superior Courts of all the provinces, they may do so.
The following is the opinion expressed by Sir George Etienne Cartier :
Accordingly, when we have lived some years under the federal regime, the urgent need of such a Court of Appeal with jurisdiction in such matters will be felt, and, if it is created, I it will be fit that its jurisdiction should extend I to civil causes which might arise in the several confederate provinces, because it will necessarily be composed of the most eminent judges in the different provinces, of the jurists whose reputation stands highest, of men, in short, profoundly skilled in the jurisprudence of each of the provinces which they will respectively represent. Well, if this court is called upon, for instance, to give final judgment on a judgment rendered by a Lower Canada court, there will be among the judges on the bench, men perfectly versed in the knowledge of the laws of that section of the confederation, will be able to. give the benefits of their lights to the other judges sitting with them.
The honourable Mr. Justice Fournier, who introduced the Bill constituting the Supreme Court, stated that this tribunal, as organized, was strictly constitutional. But let Hon. Mr. CARROLL.
us forego that question, and deal with the actual facts. The Supreme Court has been in existence twenty-seven years. At the outset, many complaints were made against it. I remember reading, in the report of the discussion which took place when Mr. Girou-ard introduced a Bill to the same purpose as the present one, in the House. But who were the complainants ? Members, unsuccessful litigants, who had had cases before that court and had not succeeded in having their claims sustained. That was the cause of much discontent for six or eight years. But since 1882, has there been any serious cause of complaint proven against the Supreme Court ?
The hon. member for St. Johns and Iberville, who earefully worked up his case, could only find, after going through the volumes of ' Hansard ' since 1882, such extracts as he quoted from the Canada Law Journal, in support of his contention. I admit there is something abnormal about the constitution of the Supreme Court In the fact that there are only two judges familiar with the French laws of the province of Quebec. But I contend that this defect is not of such great consequence as some would have us believe. The French law is based on the Roman law, and so is tlie English law. It may be that, as regards questions of procedure, the inconvenience is felt to a greater degree, but it is a poor compliment to pay to our civil laws to represent them as a' mystery which no one can solve. If that argument had any weight it would apply more particularly to the Privy Council whose members are not supposed to know any thing at all about the civil law of the province of Quebec, while there are two judges of the Supreme jOourt specially conversant with that law.
I am in favour of maintaining the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as I believe the provinces are not yet ripe for judicial autonomy. To convince oneself of the truth of what I say, it will suffice to observe what is going on. Notwithstanding all the respect I have for the courts of appeal of my province, notwithstanding the attainments, integrity and impartiality of the judges composing them, I say that the Supreme Court, as well as the Privy Council, serve, so to speak, as safety valves, and that it is a good thing for litigants to have a court of last resort outside of the provincial domain.
See what is going on in Ontario. There, judges of the High Court have been made the object of attacks in the legislature to a degree unknown in my province.
But there is another reason, of a more practical character for upholding the Supreme Court. Should that Bill become law, the maritime provinces, which have no courts of appeal, would be without an appellate tribunal to resort to. The answer given to this argument is that such courts of appeal should be provided for those pro-
2361	MAY 4, 1903	2362
vinces. Well, let these courts of appeal for the maritime provinces be constituted first, and then parliament may be called upon to vote the Bill proposed by the hon. member. For reasons of a practical character, the government cannot allow the Bill to become law just now. It may be voted a few years hence when our judicial system has been reorganized.


Mr. J. E. E. LEONARD (Laval).: (Translation.) I did not inted to address the House after the hon. Solicitor General. But as the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) has not thought fit to be present here tonight, to defend the policy of the government, relieving himself of the burden on the hon. the Solicitor General, I deem it my duty as a French member from the province of Quebec, to give my support to the hon. member for St. Johns and Iberville, in respect to the Bill, the second reading of which was moved this evening.
The province of Quebec, more especially, suffers from the judgments of the Supreme Court. And it is made to suffer the more because the majority of the judges of that court, consisting of talented men, no doubt, are utterly ignorant of French laws and customs. The province of Quebec wishes to remain French, and to attain that object, it must keep its civil laws and have judges who studied and understand its laws.
The hon. Solicitor General, in support of a cause which he unwillingly upholds, argued that the maritime provinces had no court of appeal. That is so, but it is an easy matter to establish such courts. There can be no difficulty in giving those provinces what they are in need of, and it is unfair that the province of Quebec should be made to suffer any longer for such trifling reasons.
We are all aware that, at the time the Supreme Court was constituted, the members from the province of Quebec almost unanimously opposed the Bill for the reasons given to-night by the member for St. Johns and Iberville. The majority of the judges of the Supreme Court are not at all conversant with the French civil laws ; and the barristers in the province of Quebec, knowing as they do that these judges are not competent to deal with matters of French civil law, generally advise their clients to limit their claims to $1,999, in order to preclude any possibility of appeal to the Supreme Court. The hon. the Solicitor General stated that it was in the interest of the province generally, and of the province of Quebec in particular, to uphold the Supreme Court, which played the part of a safety valve, its judges being outside of provincial influences. I feel I am in duty bound to say that, as regards the province of Quebec, the courts of appeal now in existence answer all purposes of that kind. All thejudges who sit in those courts are really qualified, and soar above the disputes of litigants.
As I stated a moment ago, I was not aware that the Bill was to be discussed this
evening. I regret it, for had I known, I would have made it a point to get ready for the debate. It would have been an easy matter to find arguments in support of the Bill. However, I have no hesitation in saying that the case made by my hon. friend in support of his Bill was carefully prepared and clearly laid out. The House should pass this Bill at once, even if it were only through consideration for the province of Quebec. The supporters of the government are largely from that province, and a good way for the government to show their thankfulness to Quebec would be to comply with the wishes of the members from that province, and to do away with the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in matters of civil law, which would then be referred in last resort to the highest court of appellate jurisdiction in the province.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).: I merely want to add a few words to what has been said, and I think it is proper and a simple matter of courtesy to our Englishspeaking colleagues that a few words should be said in English on this subject; not that much practical result will come from this debate at present, but I believe that this parliament and government will be forced before long to remove the sentiment of distrust that is growing in the province of Quebec against the Supreme Court. It may be said that the word ' distrust ' is a strong one, but it is that which was used by my hon. friend and which he has taken from another authority. As my hon. friend from St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers) has said, that sentiment does not arise, and has never arisen, from any personal animosity against the members who compose the Supreme Court of Canada. But, as my hon. friend has said-and this is the one line of argument on which I desire to insist-there is something in the Supreme Court that shocks common sense. Apart from the legal aspect of the question, upon which of course I would not dare to express my views, the federal Act creating this federal court authorized it to act as the highest court of appeal in all matters and laws affecting the Dominion, whether provincial or federal. The parliament of Canada has thought proper to give to that court an appellate jurisdiction in all cases in which a higher amount than a certain prescribed sum is at stake, affecting the civil and other laws that are within the exclusive legislative powers of the provinces; so that certain laws and matters, in respect of which we have no power whatever to legislate, in respect of which the supreme power of legislation lies in the provinces and in respect of which provincial tribunals have been established to adjudicate, the parliament of Canada has brought within the jurisdiction of this federal court which it has established. Therefore, we have given to a court created by this parliament jurisdiction to decide on matters concerning which we have no power

whatever to legislate. That being the case, there is at the basis ot the creation of the Supreme Court of Canada something, it seems to me, that shocks common sense. My hon. friend the Solicitor General lias said that in the beginning there were some complaints against the Supreme Court, but that those arose from political causes and came from members of parliament who considered themselves aggrieved by decisions of the Supreme Court in electiou matters. I shall not refer at all to that part of the question, but I say that although complaints may not often have been made in the parliament of Canada, nevertheless they still exist. As my hon. friend from St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers) says, we have sometimes had complaints made on account of the personnel of the judges composing some of the courts of the provinces. At times it has been urged that the Court of Appeals of the province of Quebec does not now enjoy the esteem in which it was held some years ago on account of its personnel, but we have never heard any complaints with regard to its jurisdiction. It has never been urged that its jurisdiction should be amended. It lias been said that the government did not always choose the best men to sit in that court. But as regards the Supreme Court of Canada, complaints have been made that cases which were decided by one of the judges of the Superior Court and three judges of the Court of Review and five judges of the Court of Appeals of that province, or in all, nine judges conversant with the laws of the province of Quebec, were afterwards decided by a tribunal on which there were only two judges who could be considered as authorities on the laws of that province. So that you have, as far as the province of Quebec is concerned, placed in the hands of two men the right to revise the judgments of nine other men equally versed in our laws. My hon. friend has said that the right of appeal to the Supreme Court and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is a safeguard to the litigants of our province, who might not be satisfied with the decisions of the final court of appeals of that province. Well, the same thing might be said of any tribunal. Litigants that are not satisfied with the judgment of the Privy Council would say that there should be another safeguard. But now we have an Australasian colony, one where there is no race question to deal with, and which is known as being the most loyal of the British colonies-I refer to New Zealand-complaining bitterly as to the way the British Privy Council has dealt with some of the judicial matters of that colony. Therefore, the fact that complaints may arise against one tribunal is no reason for saying that we should give more appeals. In France, I believe, appeals are limited to two courts, whatever may be the amount involved. One is the court of appeal-I do not know the name it bears-and then the court Mr. BOURASSA.
of cassation. Beyond this, there is no appeal. In England there are less appeals, I believe, than with us. In this country where we are more distant, where the interests are smaller and the litigants are poorer- where everything is against the multiplicity of appeals-we have more appeals than they have in England, or in the republic of France, or in the United States. My hon. friend from St. Johns and Iberville has quoted words from Lord Dufferin which apply most perfectly to this case, words spoken by him when the Supreme Court was created. He expressed the hope that the Supreme Court of Canada would attain an equally high position in popular respect with that of the Supreme Court of the United States. As a rule, comparisons between the constitution of Canada and the constitution of the United States are entirely in favour of Canada. But this is one particular point in which we might take a lesson from our neighbours. As is well known to the members of this House, whether they belong to the legal profession or not, the magistrates of the United States do not enjoy, on the average, the same respect that our judges or the judges of England enjoy. How is it, then, that the Supreme Court of the United States is the one tribunal in that country that has never been attacked by any class of men, but, at times, has saved the dignity and future of the republic ? This arises from the fact that the legislators in the United States have vested in the Supreme Court only such powers as might be exercised properly by such a tribunal, and have prevented small cases that might cause useless friction between the litigants and the highest tribunal of the republic being brought before that court. The jurisdiction is limited to the same power as those to which my hon. friend would like the Supreme Court of Canada to be limited. And what has been the result ? People know that when they appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States they appeal to a tribunal that has nothing to do with trifling matters, with small matters between individuals, but with matters designed to promote harmony between the citizens of the United States or between the states themselves, or to interpret the general laws of the republic or laws that might arouse conflict between the states. Here, it is entirely different. Not satisfied with the multiplied appeals that we have in the provinces, we have created a supreme body. Whatever be the legal power of the parliament of Canada at the time they created that Supreme Court, it is certainly against the spirit, if not the letter of the constitution, that the federal authorities should have the power to create another tribunal than one that would give uniform jurisprudence In matters of federal legislation. But I am quite positive, and common sense would tell us that the authors of confederation never contemplated-or, at least, it was not their main purpose-to create an appeal

body for the different provinces. What they meant, and what we should carry out-for, after all, the work of the fathers of the confederation is a work that may be changed once in a while, though, as a rule I am not in favour of changing the work of the authors of the constitution-is when we find in some of the subsequent legislation matters against the spirit of the constitution, we should come nearer to the spirit of the constitution, though we may break with the letter.	Can it have
been the intention of the fathers of the constitution to create a tribunal of appeal for the provinces ? It must have been their intention to create a supreme body that would enjoy the respect of the whole people of Canada and of the different governments of Canada ; therefore, a body that would be composed of men entirely versed in the law they were to interpret. But, as my hon. friend from St. Johns has said, when we have cases brought from the court of appeal of Quebec to the Supreme Court, we know-I have been a witness of it myself-that the lawyers from the province of Quebec find it necessary to make for some of the judges an elementary course in the law of our province, such as is given to the second year student. This is not a fact that is likely to raise our respect for the Supreme Court; and, our respect for the Supreme Court being diminished in ordinary legal matters when it is called upon to give interpretation on the main body of our provincial laws, in the reaction, we have less respect and consideration for I hem in matters in which they have perfect jurisdiction and in which they ought to be the supreme body. Therefore, for the safety of our constitution, for the harmony of the provinces, and in the interest of uniformity in our law and the giving to the provincial law the proper interpretation, they should deal with federal law, and should not have the power to pass judgment under the law of the different provinces. As my hon. friend lias said, in every province it is forbidden for a lawyer, although he may have practiced for twenty-five years in another province, to plead even an ordinary case before any of the courts of such province in which he is not a member of the bar, because he is supposed not to know the law of that province. But now, simply by an Act of this parliament, a man who would not be allowed to plead before a justice of the province of Ontario will come and give judgment as a final appeal against all judgments that may have been rendered by the high court of justice or the court of appeal of Ontario. And, in the same way, a lawyer who, because of his lack of legal knowledge, could not plead before the Superior Court of the province of Quebec, will, the day after lie is appointed to the Supreme Court, pass final judgments on matters that he does not know and will reverse the judgments of the Superior Court, the Court of Review and the Court of Appeal
of that province, courts that are composed of men who must have practiced .law in their province for at least ten years. I appeal to any man of common sense, whatever might be the letter of the constitution, whatever might be the intention of the men who created the Supreme Court, if the time lias not come to deal with this problem and put the Supreme Court in a position, not of less power and prestige, but of greater power and prestige, because their jurisdiction would be confined to matters that these judges will know?


Robert Laird Borden: The government can hardly realize the importance of this measure, otherwise we should not see the front benches opposite in their present condition. This is a Bill that proposes to take away about nine-tenths of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada. We have not the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice or any other member of the cabinet in the House to consider it, except my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding).
I think therefore there must be some misapprehension in the minds of the members of the government as to what this Bill really means, or we would see some little attention paid to it by members of the government. Does the Minister of Finance realize what this Bill means ? Does he realize that it is one of the most important Bills touching the judiciary of this country that has ever been offered to this House ?	1 should think
that some members of the government, at least, would tell us what they are prepared to do with it, and that we would not see the spectacle in this parliament of its passing, as it actually did, the second reading a moment ago, and having this principle affirmed without a single member of the government except the Solicitor General, who addressed the House to some extent upon it, saying a single word about it. I do not think that seems to indicate that the Bill has received very much consideration at the hands of the government, or we would surely have heard something more about it.
Now I do not deny that there is something in the argument of my hon. friend from St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers). I understand that gentlemen from the province of Quebec do not like very well to see the judgments of their own final courts overruled by the Supreme Court of Canada, and possibly, in some cases, when a judge from their own province may have sustained the judgments of the court below. I believe that has happened sometimes. Well, that happens sometimes in cases from other provinces. I myself, from the province of Nova Scotia, have known a unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court of my province overruled in the Supreme Court by a divided court, the majority of which included two judges from the province of Quebec. Of course these are circumstances that will

sometimes occur. But it does not necessarily tollow that you cannot have a Supreme Court of Canada that will do fairly good work. I acknowledge at once that, from the very constitution of that court, there may be to a certain extent a sort of inherent weakness in it; but I do not think It is a weakness that is not! capable of being overcome by appointing to that court the most eminent men that you can get in the whole of Canada, and appointing those men at a time of life when they can devote some time to the study of the laws of the different provinces. My horn friend emphasizes altogether too much the differences between the laws of the various provinces. Now take cases from the province of Quebec. You will find among them questions arising upon matters as to which the laws of all the provinces are practically the same. The laws of Quebec as well as of the other provinces are supposed to be founded on common sense. For example, take the provisions of the Code, they are in many respects very much like the provisions of our English common law. Our English Equity system is founded upon provisions of the civil law which is really very much the same as the system of law administerd in the province of Quebec to-day. Take all the statute law of Canada, take for example the Bills of Exchange Act, and you have the same provisions prevailing in all the provinces.
My hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bour-assa) spoke of counsel from one province not being fit to conduct a case before a magistrate in another province. My hon. friend is entirely mistaken. In the province of Nova Scotia we would be glad to welcome at our bar any member of the bar of the; province of Quebec, and admit him by courtesy to practise before our courts in any case in which he happened to be interested. That is done every day. Members of the bar of thej United States of America come into our courts in cases in which they have clients in the United States, and by courtesy are allowed to practise before our courts. Members of the bar of Ontario have, during the past year, appeared before our courts.


Mr. EMMERSON.: This privilege is reciprocal in the United States.


Robert Laird Borden: I know it is. I am only pointing out to the member for Labelle what perhaps he has not fully appreciated, that even as between ourselves and the various courts in the United States, the laws are so much the same that a man eminent in his profession in one place can practise with advantage in another place, and is allowed to do so as a matter of courtesy. So far as the laws of the maritime provinces and the laws of Ontario and the west are concerned, they are very much the same. There Is really no reason why a judge from the province of Ontario, or a judge from the maritime provinces, cannot deal successfully with cases coming from Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
a province in which he has not practised ; that is to say, a judge coming from the province of Ontario is fully capable of sitting in appeal on cases coming from the province of Nova Scotia, and I think judges and lawyers from the maritime provinces, assuming they are eminent men at the bar, are capable of dealing with cases that come from the province of Ontario, or Manitoba, or British Columbia.
Now it is not impossible, Mr. Speaker, to have a court that) will give satisfaction, although that court has to administer laws with which all the members of the court are not familiar. Take for instance, the Privy Council, referred to by the member for St. Johns and Iberville. The Privy Council, I think, has commanded the respect, not only of litigants but of lawyers from all parts of the British empire. The Privy Council administers, I suppose, twenty different systems of law, at least-I am speaking offhand-and administers laws with regard perhaps to thirty, forty or fifty different races. The Privy Council commands the respect, I believe, of my hon. friends of the bar of the province of Quebec-T have not heard anything to the contrary in the speech of the hon. member for St. Johns and Iberville. Well, the members of the Privy Council are not men who have made a special study of the laws of the province of Quebec, but I think on the whole, cases from that province that have gone to the Privy Council, as a general rule, have received the consideration which has entitled that judicial body to the respect of members of the bar from that province. The Supreme Court of the United States administers different systems of law. Is it not a fact that the state of Louisiana enjoys the advantage of a civil law which, to some extent, resembles that which prevails in the province of Quebec ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: New York has a code.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax. But I am speaking of an entirely different system of law. The state of Louisiana has a different system of law from most of the states comprising the American republic.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Has the Supreme Court of the United States jurisdiction over the state laws of Louisiana when they do not affect outsiders ?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not pretend to be very familiar with the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States, but I should suppose that when a question of state law arose between the residents of that state and those of another state, the Supreme Court of the United States would have to deal with it.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That is what this Bill proposes to do.


Robert Laird Borden: Would not the Supreme Court of Canada, or the Supreme Court of the United States, be able to deal
MAY i, 1903
with the local laws in cases of that kind ? What makes the Supreme Court of Canada, or that of the United States, better able to deal with the laws of the provinces or of the states In such cases ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It is a matter of necessity.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is there any necessity ? Why not, in that case, leave it to the law of the particular province in which the litigant resides, and from which the case comes on appeal, if you take it for granted that the ultimate tribunal is not capable of dealing satisfactorily with the question presented to its consideration ? That argument carried to its logical conclusion would exclude ai Supreme Court of Canada altogether. The argument of my hon. friend from St. Johns and Iberville, if carried to its logical conclusion, would abolish the Supreme Court of Canada, and would leave it with not even the fragment of its jurisdiction which it is proposed to preserve by this Bill. Now I do' not say that the Supreme Court of Canada is perfect; I do not say that the selections to the bench of that court have always been such as commended themselves in every way to all the people in tiie country. I admit that there is what you might call the inherent weakness that I have mentioned. But still, I say that the Supreme Court of Canada has in many respects done fairly good work; and if appointments of the most eminent men to be found in Canada are made to the bench of that court, It is capable in future of doing even better work than it has done in the past. I do not think that a measure of this kind ought, at least, to be passed by this House without more consideration not only from the House but from the government than that which this Bill apparently has received at the present time. It is a Bill of the most important character and I would suggest to my hon. friend the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) that if the Bill has not already been fully considered by the government perhaps it might be wise to allow it to stand in order that it may be considered and in order that we may have the views of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick.) in regard to it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I perhaps might take exception to the statement of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that the government will permit this Bill to be passed without any objection. Being a layman I will not presume to discuss the merits of the Bill, but the hon. Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Carroll) in the absence of the hon. Minister of Justice, gave expression to his views of the government against the Bill and we were about to call for the division when the hon. member for Uabeile (Mr. Bou-75
rassa) rose and continued the debate. So that, there is no reason for saying that the government has not fully considered the matter. I am aware that the hon. Minister of Justice has advised that it is inexpedient that this Bill should be adopted at the present time. The government are prepared to take that view, and I hope the hon. member for St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers) will not press the Bill at the present stage. But, if he is obliged to do so, all I can say that we will have to ask the House to reject the Bill.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to discuss the merits of the Bill but there was one remark which fell from the lips of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) which I think should not go unchallenged. He has drawn a comparison between the Supreme Court of the United States and the courts in this Dominion and he made the statement that so far as his information was concerned the federal court in the United, States was one that was above criticism. I think that the hon. member has not been familiar with the history of that court. He has not been familiar with the decisions of the federal court of the United States. Many hon. members, especially those in the legal profession, recollect the Dred Scott case, the legal tender case and many other cases involving the question of slavery and a very notable case, that of the contention between Hayes and Tilden, candidates for the Presidency of the United States. On the contrary that court has been subject, and subjected, to very great citicism in the years in which it has been in existence. I do not think it is a matter of very great remark that ought to be emphasized but it only goes to show that it is impossible to constitute a tribunal that would be above criticism. The courts of this Dominion are not subjected to very great criticism, I think, in comparison with other courts and they are not entitled to greater criticism than are courts in other jurisdictions. I simply call the attention of my hon. friend to the circumstances with the view of repelling the idea that there is even one court in the United States which stands superior and above any court in this Dominion.


Mr. R. LEMIEUX (Gaspe).: Mr. Speaker, I believe that diversity is one of the elements of beauty. I believe also, judging by this debate, that by an assimilation of races as well as by a uniformity of laws in this Dominion, our country would lose much of its attractiveness. Although the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) has stated that the government wanted this Bill to be rejected, I for one, will be obliged to vote against the government, much to my regret, because I entirely agree with the views so ably expressed by my hon. friend from St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers). The members of this House are



not passing judgment on the Supreme Court. We might appeal to a much higher authority than to that of the members of this House. We can quote the judges of the Supreme Court against themselves. Let me take the dictum of Mr. Justice Girouard himself. I find by reference to ' Hansard ' of 1881, that he was the father of a Bill quite similar to the one introduced by the hon. member for St. Johns and Iberville ; in fact, I think the two Bills are exactly the same. It is true that, to-day, Mr. Justice Girouard, one of the legal luminaries of this Dominion, is sitting on the bench of the Supreme Court. But what was his opinion in 1881 ?


Robert Laird Borden: What will be my hon. friend's opinion when he occupies a seat on that bench 1


Rodolphe Lemieux: Wait till the clouds roll by. Let us stand by what we are discussing now.


Robert Laird Borden: Think of the future.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I see that Mr. Justice Girouard, speaking in 1881, after having quoted the section of the British North America Act as follows
The parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, from time to time, provide for the constitution, maintenance, and organization of a general court for Canada, and for the establishment of any additional courts for the better administration of the laws of Canada.
makes this comment:
It seems to me that it is more than doubtful that this parliament had a right to establish a provincial Court of Appeal. The provision is to the effect that we shall have a right to establish a general Court of Appeal for Canada. We have made it general for the Dominion, and we have also made it a general Court of Appeal for the provinces. We have made it a Court of Appeal for the province of Quebec, contrary to the provision wjiich I read a few moments ago, which says that provincial courts shall be established by provincial legislatures. This is to me apparent, when we read the last words of the same clause providing for the establishment of any additional court, which would seem to be in the same spirit and sense, that is to say, for the better administration of the laws of Canada, not for the administration of the laws of the provinces; not for the administration or interpretation of property and civil right, or provincial rights. As I said in opening, I contend the Supreme Court is a necessity in constitutional cases, and that was also noticed at the time of the discussion of the Confederation Act before the imperial parliament.
Now, Mr. Justice Girouard is not tbe only one to hold such views. Sitting beside that learned judge on the Supreme Court bench we find the ex-Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Mills), a very high authority on constitutional questions. ' Hansard ' is indeed very useful in a discussion of this kind, as I find that in 1875 Mr. Mills said :


Rodolphe Lemieux: It seemed to him that this expression * a General Court of Appeal for Canada,' meant a court of appeal having cognizance of questions arising under the legislation of this parliament and not on any question that might arise under the jurisdiction of any one of the provinces.
You will also find, presiding over that court, a gentleman created Chief Justice, by this government, which I am sorry to say will ask this Bill to be rejected, Sir Elzear Taschereau, who, speaking in 1875, a long time ago, said :
In a word, they have their good old French laws which had been secured to us by solemn treaties, laws of which they were so proud, and under which their forefathers had lived so happy, and he might add, so loyal, under the protection of the British Crown. All these laws had a few years ago been codified by the most eminent jurists of their province, and at the present time their two codes of civil law and of civil procedure could well bear the comparison with the French modern Napoleon codes. The English speaking citizens of Lower Canada had long been accustomed to see their civil rights governed by these laws, they had learned to admire and cherish them, and they were now perhaps, as firmly attached to them as the French Canadian population was. In fact he hoped to see the day when all their sister provinces, seeing the perfectness of their codes, would adopt them as their laws of the land. But the more they were attached to their dear old laws, to their own legal machinery, so different, so widely different from the system of the other provinces, the more they were inclined to see a danger in all innovations proi not going too far when he said that when a supreme tribunal of appeal was proposed to be created outside their province, composed of judges, the great majority of whom would be unfamiliar with the civil laws of Quebec, which tribunal would be called upon to revise and would have the power to reverse the decisions of all their Quebec courts, there was, for them at least, cause for alarm if not a danger, a great danger to be apprehended.
We therefore have the opinion of three of the most distinguished judges of the land; nay, three judges of the Supreme Court


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon ; Mr. Justice Taschereau whose opinion he quotes is Mr. Justice Taschereau of Montreal ; not Mr. Justice Taschereau of the Supreme Court.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, I believe the Solicitor General is right. He is a cousin of Sir Elzear any way.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He belongs to the same distinguished family.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: They are all judges in that family.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At all events we have a majority in our favour. We have two judges of the Supreme Court: Mr. Justice Girouard and Sir. Justice Mills both of whom not so long ago stated that in their opinion the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was un-

constitutional as regards the interpretation of the Civil Laws. Having the authority of judges who themselves have contested their jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court being intended to be essentially a federal court-quite recently the court was asked for an interpretation of subsection 4 of section 51 of the British North America Act-should not the government support the Bill which has been introduced by the hon. member for St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers) ?
Motion for second reading of Bill negatived on division.


INSOLVENCY ACT.
Mr.  F. D.@: MONK (Jacques Cartier) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 53) respecting Insolvency. He said : Mr. Speaker, in proposing the second reading of this important measure I have to express my regret once more that it has not fallen into abler hands than mine. But coming as I do from a city where we have very considerable commercial transactions it is perhaps not inappropriate that I should move in the matter. I know the trouble that was taken with this Bill when it was first introduced by my former colleague, now Mr. Justice Fortin, who with others took great pains in the preparation of the Bill, and who obtained the sanction of the commercial bodies throughout the Dominion and the approval of many legal gentlemen.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: This is a Bill on which a great number of the members of the House who are not present tonight would like to speak. Would my hon. friend object to have it stand,-I ask him in the interest of those who are in favour of the Bill.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would have no objection but for the fact that now we have little time left for the consideration of Public Bills. If I had the assurance of the government that this Bill would be discussed during the present session, there would be no difficulty in allowing it to stand. Private members now have only Mondays at their disposal, and the Order may not be reached again. I think the Bill should get its second reading now and we can consider it in committee later on. I would be very glad to see a larger House when such an important measure is being discussed, but, if I allow this opportunity to pass I have a fear that it will meet the fate that several Insolvency Bills have met with before 1896 and since.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: To be candid with my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) I do not think he can expect to get his Bill through the present session. I could give him the assurance without hesitation, that there will be another Monday left when his Bill will be reached, if that is what my hon. friend 751	,
means. What would happen after that I cannot say. In view of the condition of the Order Paper, I would not lead my hon. friend to believe that there would be a possibility of the Bill going through all its stages this session, but an opportunity for discussing it will occur next Monday.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is not a very hopeful view which the Minister of Finance presents. This is a Bill which I think commends itself to the consideration of this House because it is the result of the study and experience of the men who are most interested in the administration of the insolvency law. It does not come to the consideration of the House at that stage in which measures often do, because hon. gentlemen will see that the Bill has been very carefully elaborated, and though I do not claim it is perfect in its present stage, yet it deserves to he experimented with.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it the same Bill that was introduced by Mr. Justice Fortin when he was a member of this House ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I think this Bill meets a want which has been very long felt in the country, and which it is imperative that parliament should supply. Almost immediately after the repeal of the Insolvency law, in 1875, boards of trade throughout the country urged upon the government of that day the necessity of some new insolvency law ; some law which would have general and uniform application throughout the country. In 1883 a Bill was submitted by Mr. Beaty, then a member of the House. In 1884 a Bill was presented to this House by the then member for Montreal Centre, now Mr. Justice Curran, neither of these Bills provided as complete an insolvency law as that which is now under consideration, because they failed to provide anything more than a method of distributing the assets of the insolvent. They made no provision for the discharge of the insolvent, nor for the penalties which are provided at the end of this Bill for the purpose of assuring an honest administration of the estate of the insolvent. In 1885 a Bill which had already been introduced once was reintroduced by Mr. Curran. Mr. Beaty also introduced a Bill which he had previously brought, to the notice of the House. In that year there was a committee of the House, which received the support of the Montreal board of trade, and I think of some other boards of trade. That committee prepared a Bill which was introduced in 1892, but which did not pass. Another Bill was subsequently prepared by the Toronto, Hamilton and Montreal boards of trade. That measure was urged upon the government of the day. In 1893 efforts were renewed in the same direction, and in 1894 the Bill which had been prepared was introduced in the Senate by the then Minister of Trade and Commerce, Sir Mackenzie

Bowell. That Bill received the consideration of a committee of the Senate, was discussed before that committee, passed the Senate Chamber, and subsequently reached this House, at the end of the session, but did not in. this House go beyond the first reading. In 1895 the same Bill was introduced in the Senate. It was announced in that year, if I mistake not, or in the previous year, in the speech from the Throne. The Bill died after passing its second reading in the Senate, and did not even reach this House. Another Bill was introduced in this House in February, 1896, by Mr. Martin, member for Winnipeg. That Bill did not pass. Every one will remember the circumstances of that session. The time of the session was occupied with one single measure which itself did not pass.
Coming now to the measure itself, which I have the honour to submit to the House, I will. not go into all the details, but will explain as briefly as possible the general scheme of the Bill. Let me say in the first place, that the courts which, under the terms of this Bill, take .cognizance of all insolvency matters in the first instance are : In the province of Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and British Columbia, the county court; in the province of Quebec, the Superior Court; in the North-west Territories, the Supreme Court. As the House will see further on, there is an .appeal from the decisions of these courts to a higher tribunal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Is that the same as in the old Act 1


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes. As regards the application of the Act, it applies solely to people engaged in commercial or manufacturing pursuits, not, as the English Act, I believe, to anybody who wishes to take advantage of it. Section 3 says :
This Act applies only to persons who as a means of livelihood, manufacture, buy, or otherwise acquire goods, wares, merchandise or commodities, ordinarily the subject of trade and commerce, and sell or otherwise dispose of the same to others, including commission merchants, whether they sell by auction or otherwise.
By another section of the Act it is declared not to apply to incorporated companies which may fall under the provisions of the Winding-up Act. The second part of the Bill defines what constitutes insolvency. It provides that a person to whom the Act applies commits an Act of insolvency in any of the following cases :
(a.) If he ceases to meet his liabilities generally as they come due ;
(b.) If he calls a meeting of his creditors for the purposes of compounding with them ; or if he exhibits a statement showing his inability to meet his liabilities ; or if he gives notice to any of his creditors that he has suspended, cr is about to suspend payment of his debts ; or if he otherwise acknowledges his Insolvency ;


Frederick Debartzch Monk: things have been passed. The application is made after another notice given that it will be presented to the court for confirmation of the deed and the discharge. If, in the management of his estate the insolvent has in any way transgressed some of the penal provisions at the end of the Bill, or if he has dealt fraudulently with the estate, and it has been shown by the examination of the insolvent himself, or in any other way, it is an absolute bar to his obtaining a discharge. But, if, in every respect, his conduct has been that of an honourable merchant, and if he conforms with the rather hard conditions named in section 28, the court may grant confirmation of the discharge. The discharge granted under such circumstances, that production, of course, affects the reconveyance of the estate to the insolvent. Still, it is provided in one of the sections of the Bill, that, even after this reconveyance has taken place, if the insolvent fails to carry out the conditions imposed upon him by the deed of his discharge, the liquidator without any other formality-I may mention that there was evidently a great desire by the framers of the Bill to avoid useless cost and expense-may resume the estate, saving, of course, rights that may have been acquired in the meantime. Of course, when the discharge is granted and the conditions have been carried out, this operates as a complete relief to the insolvent from all the debts he owes at the time of his insolvency.
There is a provision against what has happened sometimes, the obtaining of a fraudulent discharge, or the fraudulent obtaining of deeds of discharge. Under section 40, it is provided, that wherever there has been fraud of any kind, or any kind of false pretense used in obtaining a deed of discharge, that discharge is null and void.
In part 3 of the Bill, provision is made for the liquidation of property. Costs incurred after the state of insolvency has been carried are not recoverable against the estate. Claims are proved by an affidavit. When supported by instruments in writing, those instruments have to be filed with affidavits in the receiver's office.
There are, of course, sections which provide for the application of the law of set-off. Privileged claims are set out in section 44 of the Bill. Remuneration of disbursements of the guardian, proper taxable costs of the liquidator, and arrears of salary or wages due, owing and unpaid to persons in the employ of the insolvent at the date of the insolvency for one month before, but not exceeding three months, of such arrears all claims for rent are provided for under section 59.
In the case of joint and separate assets, there is a provision in section 45. The debts of the partnership are paid in the first instance out of the assets of the partnership, and the assets of the partners are applied to the settlement of the individual debts of Mr. MONK.
the partners, and then to the debts of the partnership.
There are provisions with respect to secured credit where only claims of secured creditors are to be settled. These provisions are rather lengthy, and I will not read them, but I think they provide in an excellent manner for settling claims that are secured in such a way that the creditor gets the full benefit of his security, and, at the same time, the creditors of the estate who have not such security are provided against loss.
There are provisions also for dealing with conditional and contingent claims. I may say at once that these claims are valid as between the liquidators, and if these cannot agree after conference between themselves, the court is called upon to direct in what manner that claim shall be assessed or valued. The costs in a case such as this and other similar cases are to be left to the decision of the court. There is a provision as to the valuation of negotiable instruments upon which the insolvent is only secondarily liable, under section 46.
There are also some special provisions in regard to the laws of the province of Quebec relating to rights under marriage contracts in the province, providing that there must be registration of the contract a certain time before insolvency in order that the wife may be able to claim her rights. I think that is already our law in the province of Quebec. The liquidator has no right directly or indirectly to dispose of the estate in favour of himself, but his duty is to dispose of it under the direction of the inspectors, as soon as possible after he has obtained absolute control. He may provide, under one of the sections, in his own name for the recovery of all amounts due to the estate, and the costs in such a proceeding are to be charged to the estate. He may sell, with the sanction of the inspectors collectively, all the debts due to the estate, and persons who purchase these debts from the liquidator may sue for the recovery of these debts in their own name as effectively as the liquidator could have done before parting with these assets.
There are special provisions in section 59 in regard to leases, where the insolvent is a tenant of property. I shall not go into all the details of that section. It is sufficient to say that the privilege of the proprietor for the lien due him is preserved to him under the terms of the Act. A liquidator may give three months' notice to the proprietor that he intends putting an end to the lease, and the proprietor may claim damages in consequence of that, but the lease is brought to an end nevertheless. The liquidator also, in spite of conditions to the contrary inserted in the lease, and in spite of the provision that insolvency will ipso facto put an end to the lease, may dispose of the lease for the balance of the term. I think this is a wise provision, because very

often leases of that kind constitute a most valuable asset of the insolvent, and where there is a clause in the lease protecting the proprietor and providing that in case of insolvency the lease will come to an end ipso facto, the creditors of the estate of the insolvent are deprived of a very valuable asset which might be utilized by them without causing any prejudice whatever to the proprietor.
Special provisions are contained in sections sixty and sixty-one as to sales of real estate. In the province of Quebec we have, as you are aware, a special law in regard to forced sales of real estate. I will not trouble the House with detailed explanation of these sections, because I think they can better be considered in the Committee stage of this Bill. But I may say that so far as I have been able to discover, this provision in regard to sales of real estate in the province of Quebec appeared to me to be in conformity with the disposition of our own code of civil procedure.
As to the distribution of the property, there is nothing in this Bill which varies much from the provisions of the old insolvency law, and our own law as it exists at present in the province of Quebec. The dividend sheet is prepared, notice of the deposit of the dividend sheet is given by the liquidator, claims may be contested by handing in a contestation to the liquidator. That contestation may be admitted or may be opposed, and the documents constituting the record of the contestation are transferred by the liquidator to the court having jurisdiction in that case, just as it would in an ordinary case. There is an appeal from the decision of the court of first instance, just as is the case in our own province and in the other provinces.
There is a special provision in section seventy-seven. It is there provided that where a creditor is of opinion that he may take certain proceedings for the benefit of the estate, and the liquidator, creditors or inspectors of the estate are of the opinion that these proceedings are unwise and should not be taken, the creditor may apply to the court, and, on satisfying the court that he is acting bona fide, not in collusion with the liquidator, he may be authorized to take proceedings in the name of the liquidator, but at his own expense and risk, upon terms and conditions which are fixed by the court. In that case the proceedings are conducted by the creditor, and any amounts which he recovers under these proceedings are applied in the first place to the payment of the claims of the creditors who have taken such proceedings, and the balance, if any, is distributed among the other creditors. This is a new, and I think, a wise provision.
There is a part of the Bill devoted to the manner of the distribution of small estates. I think it is unnecessary for me to go into
that in detail at the present moment. There are several provisions in part five in regard to the duties of the liquidator, the security he must give, his inability to act until he has given that security, the time within which lie must give it, the register which he must keep of all his proceedings, his duty in depositing in a bank any moneys in reference to an estate he has under administration, his duties when he wishes to employ counsel, his remuneration; also for the proceedings to be had in case of the death or removal of the liquidator; also the discharge of the liquidator when he has completely fulfilled his duty and has rendered an account.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. VVm. Paterson).: What is his remuneration ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This is what is provided in regard to remuneration :
The liquidator shall receive such remuneration as may be voted him by the creditors, or in default thereof fixed by the inspectors ; but if such remuneration is not voted by the creditors, or fixed by the inspectors, before the declaration of the final dividend or the preparation of the final account of the liquidator, If there is no dividend, if so voted or fixed, the liquidator is dissatisfied with the amount so voted or fixed he may apply to the court, giving notice to the inspectors of such application, and the court shall thereupon determine the amount of such remuneration, having regard to the nature and value of the estate, the work . done and services performed by the liquidator and the responsibility involved.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Are there any limitations as to the amount ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No. In part six of the Bill there are penalties provided for persons who, being insolvent, being in the conditions which I have referred to when I began the explanation of this Bill, endeavour to defraud or obtain credit by false pretenses. Every such person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment, or any greater punishment attached to the offence by any other statute. Are guilty of indictable offence also insolvents who do not make a full discovery of their property, as they are required to do the moment their insolvency is declared, who withhold their books or any of their property from the control of the liquidator, who conceal or secrete property, who do not disclose false claims made upon their estate, mutilate or falsify their books, make false entries therein, or dispose of property unpaid for. There are also indictable offences created in regard to creditors who obtain unduly and fradulently a preference against insolvents' property as regards, other creditors. A liquidator is also guilty of an indictable offence under certain circumstances provided in section ninety-one, which amounts to gross dereliction of duty.
In part seven entitled ' procedure generally,' there are rules provided as regards meetings of creditors. What must be done at the meeting. The chairman must be ap-

pointed, that chairman decides ail disputes, carefully prepared minutes must be kept, and it provides to what extent creditors may [DOT] vote. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into all details just now.


Henry Robert Emmerson: May I ask the hon. member (Mr. Monk) whether this Bill assumes any conflict of authority between the parliament of Canada and the legislatures of the different provinces and if it presumes to in any way repeal the Acts of the several provinces relating to the distribution of assets ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In answer to my hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson) I will say yes, to a certain extent, it repeals all the provisions of the local legislatures in regard to insolvency. As I understand it the provisions we have 1 in the province of Quebec are not strictly speaking insolvency legislation. , There are several enactments in regard to the distribution of the assets of a person who is not able to meet the claims made upon him when they come due.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Would not the same remark apply to the other provinces as well ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They do not claim to be insolvency laws.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No. We have, as I understand. absolute jurisdiction in matters of insolvency and that is why we begin the Bill by defining what constitutes insolvency, in what state a person must be to be considered an insolvent and therefore falling under our legislation. I suppose we have absolute jurisdiction to legislate as to what will be done when a state of insolvency exists, so tha,t I do not think there is exactly a conflict of authority.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It supersedes the provincial legislation.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We declare that a person finding himself in the condition described in the fourth section of this Bill is insolvent, we define insolvency and then we assume to legislate as to what would be done in the ease of a person who is in that condition.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If a sheriff under the provincial Act had charge of the assets of an estate how far would this Bill enable the liquidator to take that property out of the hands of the sheriff ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I start from the principle that we have jurisdiction in matters of insolvency and the moment that state exists, even if the sheriff is in possession of the assets of an insolvent person, I assume we have the right to legislate and that the sheriff will conform to certain regulations mentioned in this statute in regard to insolvency.


Mr. B. RUSSELE (Hants).: The question is not as to the right of this parliament to Mr. MONK.	,
pass this legislation, but I think what my hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson) is asking is if there is any machinery in the Bill of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) to deal with the case of the partial administration of an estate where there are provincial laws practically on the subject of insolvency although not professedly so.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Where there is a partial administration ?


Benjamin Russell: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, I think there is nothing in the Bill as to that.


Benjamin Russell: There should be something in the Bill to meet cases of that kind. I refer to cases that we have happening in Ontario, probably in New Brunswick and certainly in Nova Scotia where we have been legislating on the subject of insolvency although we have not said so. I think this legislation has been sustained by the Ontario Court of Appeal. I do not know whether it has ever yet come before the Supreme Court of Canada, but in the province we have been practically assuming to do what this Bill is proposing to do, and the question is whether the Bill will deal with that condition of things to which I have referred, that is the partial administration of an estate, and whether it contains provisions for cases of that sort that may arise.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think the Ontario Act in regard to the subject was sustained by the Privy Council. I would not like to be positive, but I think the original provincial Act was sustained.


Benjamin Russell: I am not! quite sure. I have not followed the question for the last few years, but we have been legislating upon the question of insolvency and my hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson) wanted to know whether the Bill made any provision in regard to the particular case I have mentioned.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think our own legislation on that subject was sustained by the Privy Council, but I would not be sure. I do not think there was any provision in the Bill as it is now drawn to meet that case.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My question did not raise any doubt as to the power of this parliament to pass insolvency laws but it is only in regard to the machinery. I desired to know whether there was any machinery provided by the Bill which would enable an estate that has been partly administered under the laws of the several provinces to be taken hold of and the administration completed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No. There is nothing in this Bill. It would be somewhat difficult to diaft such a provision.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It would be almost essential.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it would be very difficult, where proceedings had been taken

under provincial legislation for -Us to interfere. It may be done, but I cannot see bow it can be done very easily nor do I tbinlr it is very essential. We are legislating for future cases.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think you could repeal their Acts relating to the distribution of estates.


Robert Laird Borden: There was a condition analogous to what the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) has mentioned ini connection with the Winding-up Act and the old Insolvent Act. Under the old Insolvent Act a bank could be put into insolvency. When the Winding-up Act was passed it was provided that where a bank was in process of winding uj) under the Insolvent Act the assignee or curator, or whatever he was, could apply to the court to have the winding up of the estate brought under the provisions of the Winding-up Act and the court might so order. From the time the court so ordered, the estate was wound up under the Winding-up Act and not under the Insolvent Act. It would not be very difficult to make some similar provision to meet such a case as that which has been mentioned.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Except that they were both federal Acts and my hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson) is speaking of a provincial Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Quite so, but if this Act has the effect of superseding the provincial Acts then this House might properly enact that the winding up of an estate which has been partly conducted under the provincial Acts should be conducted under this Act.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There are provisions in respect to the jurisdiction of the courts, power of the courts to pass rules for the proper carrying out of the provisions of the Acts and appeals in certain limited cases. These are the principal provisions of this Bill, and I regret very much that, although 1 have summarized the Bill as much as possible, I should have taken up so much time. I think the Bill is entitled to a trial. It meets a very long felt want throughout the country. Our commercial relations between the different provinces are now very frequent, our commercial relations with other countries are increasing and I think' it would be of very great advantage to us to have one absolutely similar law on this important matter of insolvency throughout the whole Dominion of Canada.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the government will have something to say in the discussion of this Bill and as I know that several hon. members who are not here would like to say something, and as the hour isi late, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am afraid that this Bill will meet the fate of previous insolvency
Bills. Is not the government of opinion that we might at least sanction the principle of the Bill, and advance it to the committee stage? We can discuss in the committee questions such as have been raised by my hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) but I think we are able to form an opinion now as to the principle of the Bill.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think there will probably be some discussion on the principle of the Bill. I do not wish to express any strong opinion on behalf of the government against the Bill, and the observations I made were not so much on the merits of the Bill as on the possibility of its getting through this session. My own judgment is that a Bill of this importance will never get through until it is taken up by the government. The experience of the past history of such legislation, which my hon. friend has referred to, goes to show that this Bill will only be got through when it becomes a government measure. The government has expressed no general opinion on the merits or demerits of the principle of insolvency legislation, but I am aware that the government is of opinion that such a measure as this can not be enacted during the present session. If the House desires to go on with the Bill to-night I have no desire to prevent it, but I am aware there will be some discussion on the principle of the Bill. '


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Do you want to sit any longer.


Robert Laird Borden: If we are going to sit any longer we might as well go on and discuss this Bill.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Unless hon. gentlemen interested in other Bills wish to press them I think we might now adjourn.


Mr. RALPH SMITH (Vancouver).: I have had a Bill on the Order Paper for the last five weeks, and I would Uke to have it get its second reading now so that it may be referred to the Committee on Railways and Canals. I have been sitting all night here with that intention.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no objection to sit longer if hon. gentlemen wish. We might take up non-contentious Bills.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no objection to that.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We can call the Bills in order and those not objected to can proceed. If any hon. gentleman is not ready his Bill can stand until another sitting.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no objection to that.


John Charlton: The question is whether a Bill that stands now will ever

do anything else than stand during this session.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Oh, there will be another chance.


SAFETY OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 77), to promote the Safety of Railway Employees.-Mr. Smith (Vancouver) read the second time.
Mr. SMITH (Vancouver) moved that the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.
Mr. INGRAM.: I would like to ask the leader of the House if he intends to shut us off entirely. Surely we can say a few words about these Bills.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The understanding was that a Bill not objected to would go on, and that contentious Bills should not go on. I am quite willing to sit late if the hon. gentleman wants to.


Andrew B. Ingram: So far as I am concerned I am glad that this Bill has passed.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It goes to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand it, there is not the slightest restriction on the discussion at all. By the unanimous consent of the House Bills that do not involve any discussion are to be taken. That can only be done by the unanimous consent of the House and there cannot possibly be any restriction of discussion on either side. Motion (Mr. Smith, Vancouver) agreed to.


FRUIT MARKS ACT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Order being called for :
Second reading of Bill (No. 86) to amend the Fruit Marks Act, 1891.-Mr. Smith (Wentworth).
Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: I am ready to go on with this Bill.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If the hon. gentleman does not object to let it stand until the next occasion, he will have an opportunity again without fail.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Very well. Order allowed to stand.


ALIEN LABOUR ACT AMENDMENT.
Mr.   J.@: CHARLTON (North Norfolk) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 106) to amend the Act to Restrict the Importation and Employment of Aliens.
He said v At this late hour of the night and as the Bill is likely to provoke some discussion it might be advisable to allow it to stand, with the understanding on the part of the government that it shall be reached again.


Andrew B. Ingram: I regret very much that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Mr. CHARLTON.
Charlton) requests that this Bill should stand. I have certain objections to this Bill and if next Monday is to be the only day on which it can be discussed, then I may not be here and I would like to have an opportunity of stating my objections.


John Charlton: I certainly have no objection to going on with the Bill, and under the point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) perhaps it would be as well to go on with it. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Bill which I submit to the House for second reading is a Bill for correcting a provision of the Alien Labour Law which bears with great severity and with great unfairness upon the manufacturing industries of this great Dominion.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it the intention to go on with this Bill at this late hour and with so few members in the House.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have no means of preventing any hon. gentleman from taking up his Bill. We would prefer that anything that is debatable should be postponed, but we have no means of enforcing that if the House wishes to go on.


John Charlton: I am not anxious to go on with this Bill now, but the hon. member lor Elgin (Mr. Ingram) and the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith) I understand, raised objections to letting the Bill stand. My own preference would be to let the Bill stand, but if there are any members who want to discuss it to-night and who do not expect to be here when it comes up again, of course I am ready to. bow to their wishes and proceed with the Bill.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Surely, in the case of this Bill which is of vital importance to the interests of the working classes of Canada, the hon. gentleman will not proceed with it in the absence of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Sir William Mulock).


Andrew B. Ingram: Those of us who may not be present again have the right to express our objections when we have an opportunity.


John Charlton: The Minister of Labour (Hon. Sir William Mulock) perhaps would be interested in this Bill; he ought to be here if he is. The laying aside of legislation because some member of the government is absent is a bad precedent to establish. I am in the hands of the government however.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You can go on with the discussion and adjourn the debate after those who wish to speak have done so.


John Charlton: In view of the wish of the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Ingram)
I think he should have an opportunity of stating his objection. The Alien Labour Law chapter eleven of sixty and sixty-one Victoria provides in section five :

Nor shall this Act he construed as to prevent any person, partnership or corporation, from engaging under contract or agreement skilled workmen in foreign countries to perform labour in Canada in or upon any new industry not at present established in Canada ; provided that skilled labour for that purpose cannot be otherwise obtained.
The amendment which I propose to this Bill will eliminate the words :
In or upon any new industry at present not established in Canada.
Then the section will read :
Nor shall this Act be so construed as to prevent any person, partnership, or corporation, from engaging under contract or agreement skilled workmen in foreign countries, to perform labour in Canada provided that skilled labour for that purpose cannot be otherwise obtained.
Now, Sir, this law which I propose to amend has been in operation for about five years. Manufacturers universally feel the burdensome character of this law. The provision that a man shall not be permitted to engage skilled labour that cannot be obtained in Canada is utterly absurd. It is an act of tyranny on the part of any organization whose influence secures that provision. The manufacturing interest of Canada is certainly worthy of consideration and of encouragement. There is a great party in this country which makes the cardinal principle of its platform the promotion of the manufacturing interest, which is prepared to give to that interest ample protection, higher protection than it enjoys at the present time. This Bill asks nothing of that kind; but it asks for a chance to have increased prosperity and increased development for the manufacturing interest of this country.


Edward Frederick Clarke: By lower wages.


John Charlton: Not by lower wages, but by the privilege of importing skilled labour-not ordinary labour or cheap labour, but skilled labour, and of a character that cannot be procured in this country. It does not propose to take from the skilled labourer here the employment that may be his due, but merely asks the privilege of importing that kind of skilled labour which cannot be procured here. This is a class of protection without increase of duty. It is a class of protection that will enable the manufacturer to increase the efficiency of his operations, to import improved methods and improved machinery, to bring here a class of expert workmen who can teach others in this country the methods in which they have been instructed in foreign countries. The great manufacturing nations of the world are all copying the improved methods which other manufacturing nations have developed, they are all bringing in skilled labour to increase the efficiency of their operations, to cheapen and increase production. Russia has developed an enormous manufacturing
interest in textile fabrics,_ in metals, in all lines of manufacture, and Russia imports English workmen, American workmen. American machinery. Russia has created a vast manufacturing interest by doing the very thing which this absurd law condemns and prohibits. The same is true with regard to Germany. Germany is importing American machinery for the manufacture of bicycles, for the manufacture of boots and shoes, for making pig iron, for rolling rails, for making structural steel, and is importing American skilled workmen to set up that machinery. The manufacturing industries of Germany have been revolutionized by the adoption of the very methods which this law will not allow us to adopt in the Dominion of Canada. I myself saw a German who was sent to examine the system of manufacturing pig iron in the United States, who said that the labour of ten men would produce more pig iron under the American system then the labour of twenty men would do in Germany; and his business was to look into the) system, to see what the methods were and the character of the machinery employed, and to make arrangements to import into Germany the kind of skilled labour which was not obtainable there. If this absurd law had been in force in Germany, such a thing could not have been done. There could have been no improvement in the methods of the German manufacturer, because the very steps to improvement would have been declared illegal.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What law was that copied from V


John Charlton: The English manufacturers have also been copying American methods; and where they have failed to do so, they have fallen behind in the race in many lines. Take, for instance, boots and shoes. A short time ago an English shoe dealer who had bought $50,000 worth of shoes in Chicago to send to England, was asked :	Why have you done that ?
Have you not as cheap labour in England ? ' Oh, yes,' he replied, ' Well, what is the matter ? '	' We have not the improved
machinery that the Americans have.' ' Why don't you get it ? '	' Because the trades'
unions of England will not allow that machinery to be put in operation. Not only will tiiey not allow us to import skilled labour, which we cannot get in Great Britain, but they will not allow us to use the improved machinery, and consequently we are losing our hold on the markets.' That is the work of the trades' unions in England, cutting off their noses to spite their faces, and doing more than that-depriving themselves of bread.


Ralph Smith: Not a thing in it.


John Charlton: Certainly there is. It is a palpable fact; and here is this law, maintained and upheld by the trades' unions

of Canada, which lays on our manufacturers the handicap of being unable to put themselves in line with their competitors in other countries, because it does not allow them to introduce the machinery necessary, or the labourers necessary to put that machinery in operation; but they are to be compelled to stay in the background, going on in the old rut, employing the old class of labourers and the old class of machinery, and playing second fiddle to other countries.


Ralph Smith: Is there any law in England which prevents the importation of expert labour ?


John Charlton: Yes, there is a law there, the law of brute force of the labour unions. We have not developed the brute force here, but we have the law on the statute-book, which acts just as effectively, and more so. As I have said, England's loss from the practical adoption of this policy is the loss in many instances of her progress in manufactures, the loss of her ascendancy, the loss of her ability to compete with her competitors, the loss in that keen race between the manufacturing nations which requires the nation which is going to forge ahead, to be permitted to use every instrument, every force, every improvement, every degree of skill, to range the whole world over to bring to herself all those elements of success which are essential to the consummation of her ambition. Special and skilled labour is a necessary thing in a country like Canada, where our manufacturing interests are not fully developed, our manufacturers can only hold their own against the manufacturing interests of the great nation to the south by being permitted to use the best methods to secure the best labour, by being entirely untrammelled in their operation and efforts to secure ascendancy or at least abiltv to compete.


Ralph Smith: Have they not an alien labour law in the United States ?


John Charlton: They have no such law as this, forbidding the importation of skilled labour.


Ralph Smith: It is the same law.


John Charlton: It does not matter. If a manufacturer who has the plant and finds that he cannot get the labour to run that plant successfully, is to be debarred from bringing that labour in which he cannot secure at home, his operations are handicapped, and you are placing a restriction on him that is not only injurious to himself but detrimental to the interests of the country and the very association which is forcing this absurd provision on the government of Canada. I repeat that the provisions of this law are unjust. It is a self-evident fact that where a manufacturer requires skilled labour and improved machinery, where he requires any improvement that will tend to Mr. CHARLTON.
increase the efficiency of his operations by diminishing the cost of production, a law that prevents him from going out and securing the best kind of machinery and the means necessary to put it into operation, is unjust to him, detrimental to the interests of the country, and an absurd act of tyranny on the part of whatever force or element forces that law into operation. I shall not detain the House further, but ask concurrence in the Bill I submit. It is as follows :
Section five of chapter eleven of the statute of 1897, intituled ' an Act to restrict the importation and employment of aliens ' is amended by striking out the words ' in or upon any new industry not at present established in Canada ' in the tenth and eleventh lines of that section.
The second section will then read :
Nor shall this Act be so construed as to prevent any person, partnership, or corporation for engaging under contract or agreement skilled workmen in foreign countries to perform labour in Canada, provided that skilled labour cannot be otherwise obtained.
The question may be raised as to what is skilled labour and whether it can be obtained or not and how that is to be determined. I was discussing this matter with the lion. Minister of Justice, and I agree with him that if this amendment were allowed a second reading, it should be referred to the Committee of the Whole and that I should move that that Committee of the Whole should rise and report progress for the purpose of giving the hon. minister and the government opportunity to make such safeguards as they might deem proper. If the House will permit the second reading, it will open merely one stage in the matter and then whatever safeguards with which my hon. friend desires to surround his amendment, may be incorporated in it.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not intend to take up very much of the time of the House at this late hour, but am rather surprised at the hon. gentleman moving of a Bill of this character, in view of the fact that he himself is one of the commission, I believe, which intends going to Washington in a very short time. I remember the hon. gentleman finding fault some years ago with the government for taking off the duty on corn, because In so doing they had taken a very strong argument out of the mouth of the Canadian ministers for getting something which would be of advantage to the people of Canada. He is to-night doing the same thing himself. The present Act was before this House many years and defeated many years until public opinion became so strong that it forced the government to pass it. We all agree that it is an act of tyranny, but so is the law of the United States, and it became necessary for the people of Canada to pass this Act in order to protect themselves against an exactly similar one passed by the United States We were obliged to give the

people of the United States the same dose of medicine they had given us. When Canadians, who desire to go to the other side under contract to do skilled labour, are debarred from doing so, is it great hardship to the people of the United States that we should apply to them a similar restriction ? The hon. gentleman said there is no reason why we should exclude from Canada a desirable, intelligent skilful class of Americans who wish to come here and engage in the development of manufacturing industries. Well, the law of Canada does not prevent any skilled workmen coming here. But what we do prevent is their coming in under contract, and we have a right to do this, at least until our hon. friend goes to Washington and persuades the Americans to remove the restrictions they now impose on Canadian workmen. I listened to tlie hon. gentleman's speech on the budget, and I find that in moving this Bill, he has forgotten what he then said. He then said :
If we propose to transfer manufacturing interests to this country as we are doing, and will do to a still greater extent if our tariff is changed in the direction of protection, it will he necessary in some cases to permit these American manufacturing interests to import skilled labour, and why we should impose this handicap in existing circumstances on our manufacturing interests I am at a loss to understand. It should be our aim and object to develop the resources of Canada, to increase its wealth in all lines of business in the country, and especially manufacturing interests.
Using the hon. gentleman's words, I am at loss to understand why, ' If we propose to transfer American manufacturing interests to this country, as we are doing and will do to a still greater extent if our tariff is changed in the direction of protection-*'


John Charlton: I want our manufacturers to be allowed to import skilled labour.


Andrew B. Ingram: If the hon. gentleman's contention be correct, if we want more protection, and if that would be the means of bringing in manufacturing interests from the United States, I ask him to be consistent.


John Charlton: Will they not have to bring their skilled labour ? Will they bring Dagoes here ?


Andrew B. Ingram: This is nothing about the increasing of protection. Raising the tariff is the only means for that. It does not mean that the fact of skilled workmen coming into this country is going to increase our manufacturing interests. So I say the hon. gentleman (Mr. Chariton) is inconsistent in this, as he is in other lines. I do not wish to take up more time, for it is late. But I say, in the words of the hon. gentleman, skilled workmen would be biting off their noses to spite their faces if they allowed a Bill like this to pass the House. For the reasons I have stated, the only protection they have is to hold this present law until
the obnoxious section is removed from the law of the United States. And I would say, in conclusion, that if the hon. gentleman from North Norfolk is to be one of the Canadian commissioners at Washington, I would urge him to use his best efforts to have the United States authorities remove that section. So far as I am concerned as a Canadian, I shall be glad to support a measure of this kind after such action has been taken by the United States. I do not believe in legislation of this kind, but we are simply compelled to keep it on our statute-book to protect ourselves against the injustice of the American people at this particular time. I do not wish to occupy time at this late hour, so I move the adjournment of the debate.


John Charlton: I think it would be better to refer the Bill to the Committee of the Whole House, with the understanding that a motion shall be made that the committee rise and report progress. Then we can consider the Bill in committee. That was the understanding of the Minister of Justice.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Do I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) to say that the Minister of Justice has approved of this Bill ?


John Charlton: No ; I do not say he was opposed to it. What I say is that he suggested the course that I now propose, that the Bill pass its second reading and be referred to the committee, and that then the motion be presented that the committee rise and report progress, and leave the Minister of Justice to consider the Bill, and the Bill to be dealt with in committee.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think it would be better to carry out the understanding that at the conclusion of the speech of the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) the debate should be adjourned. There are several hon. gentlemen who wish to speak on the main question. Wre should not make progress at this late hour by continuing the discussion.


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

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: What business may we expect to-morrow ?


David Henderson: On the list of Public Bills a Bill standing in my name follows that of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). There are also three other Bills. From the Orders of the Day it would appear that none of these four Bills have been printed, and so could

not be taken up. But X find, by referring to my file, that all these Bills are there printed. It would seem that a course of this kind would prevent Bills coming forward in due course, and, perhaps, delay altogether their passage through the House. I was wondering why this should occur- why the Bill should be on the file, yet that it should appear from the Orders of the Day that they are not printed.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I can ouly guess at the reason, and that is that these Bills were printed to-day after the Orders of the Day for this sitting were printed, and immediately placed on thes tiles. If that is not the explanation, I could not offer any. In answer to my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Borden), as to the business for to-morrow, there are several Bills on the Government Orders which will be taken up, and, after that, Supply; the Minister of Public Works again bringing forward his estimates.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Before the adjournment is carried, as I do not wish to take either the government or the House by surprise, I desire to give notice that the next time a motion is made for Committee of Supply I shall bring up for debate the matter of the position of the commander of the militia, especially with reference to some speeches and interviews recently given by Lord Dundona'ld.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Will the motion the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) intends to make occupy some time ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It is not a motion, but simply the discussion of a matter which I wish the government and the House to take notice of. As the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cas-grain) knows, such a discussion need not be followed by a motion-


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: In that case, I beg leave to give notice to the government that the next time there is a motion to go into Committee of Supply I will move a resolution regarding the passing of certain Orders in Council relating to the Treadgold concessions in the Yukon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.10 a.m., Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 5, 1903.