1903-07-09

Mr. WILSON asked :: 1.	Have those railways subsidized or bonused, from the year 1896 to May 1st, 1903, which have received more than $3,200 per mile, been carrying mails free, according to the agreement upon which the subsidies were granted 2
2.	If not. is it the intention of the government to enforce the terms upon which the subsidies were granted, and compel these roads to carry the mails free from the date of the issuing of the subsidies ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: It is not the case that any railways that have received aid from the government, under legislation passed since 1896, have not complied with all the conditions attaching to such aids, but they have rendered the services required to be rendered under the terms of any aids granted to them.


A KING'S WAREHOUSE AT WINNIPEG.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaRIYIERE asked :
1.	Has the honourable the Minister of Customs received the following letter from C. N. Bell, Esq., secretary of the Winnipeg Board of Trade ?
The Honourable William Paterson,
Minister of Customs,
Ottawa, Ont.
Sir.-I have the honour, by direction, to give you herewith a copy of a resolution passed at a general meeting of this board, held on the 30th of June, viz.: ' Resolved, that this board represent to the Dominion government the necessity and advisability of the Customs Department establishing and maintaining a King's warehouse in Winnipeg.'
In explanation, I beg to inform you that the customs sufferance warehouses, but especially the one at the Canadian Pacific Railway station, are crowded with imported goods, a large percentage of which have remained there, according to a detailed statement of the railway company, for periods varying from ten days to six months, to the detriment of the business of the general importing public.
As King's warehouses are in existence in eastern provinces, at ports minor in importance to Winnipeg, which now ranges as third as to revenue importance in the Dominion, this board are satisfied that you will at once see that Winnipeg is entitled to be placed on a proper footing in this direction.
2.	Will a King's warehouse be established in Winnipeg at an early date ?
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Win. Paterson) :: 1. The Minister of Customs has received the letter referred to. It is the duty of transportation companies and importers to provide warehouse accommodation for im-


Mr. INGRAM.: ported goods. It is open to the railway companies to relieve the crowding of their warehouses by requiring prompt entry of imported goods at the customs-house.
2. The customs examining warehouse at Winnipeg is a King's warehouse. The question as to extending this warehouse is undecided.



IMMIGRATION EXPENDITURE.

Mr. WILSON asked :: What was the total expenditure made by the Dominion of Canada on immigration from the 1st of July. 1902, to the 30th June, 1903 ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: The total expenditure in connection with immigration during the year ended the 30th June, 1903, was $5G0,S57.45. This sum includes letters of credit in favour of the High Commissioner, London, England, and Commissioner of Immigration, Winnipeg, in regard to which statements of expenditure have not yet been received up to the end of June, but it is expected that all moneys advanced to them will be expended.



OTTAWA IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION.

[Stage Direction]
. The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House do tomorrow go into committee to consider the following resolution
That it is expedient to amend chapter 10 of the statutes of 1899, intituled : ' An Act respecting the city of Ottawa,' as follows :-
1.	The period during which the sum of sixty thousand dollars annually, referred to in section 1 of chapter 10 of the statutes of 1899, may be paid, shall be a period not exceeding twenty years from the first iday of July, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine, instead of a period not exceeding ten years from said day, as provided in said section.
2.	The commission may borrow from time to time, on debentures of the commission, bearing interest at a rate not exceeding four per cent per annum : which debentures the commission is hereby authorized -to iss-ue ; such sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, as may be required to enable the commission to purchase land or to carry into effect any scheme of improvements -and undertakings requiring a larger outlay than would be available out of the annual income of -the commission, or for both purposes. Providing always that no money shall be borrowed by the commission except with the previous consent of -the Governor in Council.
3.	No debentures shall be issued by the commission for a period extending beyond the 1st day of July, in the year one thousand nine hundred and nineteen. The debentures issued under the -authority of this Act shall be paid and redeemed by the commission in equal annual Instalments, beginning -at the expiration of one year from the date of the issue thereof. So that the total amount of the debentures so issued shall be fully paid and redeemed on or before the said first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen.
4.	The principal of the debentures issued under this Act, and the interest thereon, shall be a first charge and lien upon the income of
the commission from whatever -source derived. And the commission shall each year set apart and appropriate such amount of such income as shall be required to pay and discharge the principal and interest of such debentures as shall fall due and become payable during such year.
The word 'year' in this section means the period beginning on the first day of July, in one year, and ending on the 30th day of June in the next year.
Mr. SPROULE.: The hon. gentleman should give his explanation now.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is only the first stage. It merely sets the day for further consideration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It has happened, I think, more frequently than otherwise that the explanation is given on the resolution, and not on the Bill.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is when the motion is made to go into committee on the resolution, not at this stage.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved that the House do to-morrow go into committee to consider the following resolution:-
1.	Resolved, -that it is expedient to provide that the security to be held by the Minister of Finance and Receiver General, for the redemption of Dominion notes, issued and outstanding at any one time, up to and including thirty million dollars, shall be an amount in gold, or in gold and securities of Canada ; the principal or interest of such securities being guaranteed by the government of the United Kingdom, equal to not less -than twenty-five per cent of the -amount of such notes so issued and out-st-anding. The amount so to be held in gold to be not less -than fifteen per cent of such amount so Issued and outstanding. And for the redemption of Dominion notes issued in excess of thirty million dollars, an -amount in gold equal to such exc-ess.
2.	That all expenses incurred or required to be paid in connection with the engraving, printing or preparation of Dominion notes, or the signing, issue or redemption thereof, shall be paid ou-t of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada. And in case the amount held as security for the redemption of Dominion notes should not be sufficient to pay the Dominion notes presented for redemption ; or in ease the amount so held should be reduced below the amount required to be held, as provided iu the aforegoing resolution, the Governor in Council may raise by way of loan, temporary or otherwise, such sum of money as may be necessary to pay such notes ; or to provide the amount required to be held as security for the redemption of Dominion notes issued and outstanding.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond Prefontaine) moved that the House do to-morrow go into committee to consider the following resolution :- '	.
Resolved, that it Is expedient to amend, the Steamboat Inspection Act, to make provision
[Stage Direction]
for the abrogation of steamboat inspection fees and dues ; and for the better regulation of yachts propelled by gas, fluid, naphtha or electric motors.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES moved that the House do tomorrow go into committee to consider the following resolution
Resolved, that it is expedient to further amend the Act respecting certificates to masters and mates of ships, by making provision for a new certificate called a ' Home Trade Certificate and to otherwise amend the said Act.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 21) to amend and consolidate the law respecting railways.-The Minister of Railways and Canals.
Mr. MACLEAN.: I wish to call the attention of the committee to section 204 which deals with passenger traffic on railways. I think the time has arrived when this legislature ought to define what the maximum passenger rate on our railways shall be. The fact is that railways which operate in Canada and the United States carry the people for two cents a mile in the United States and when they cross the boundary they charge the Canadian people three cents a mile. For fifty years railways have been running in Canada and the standard passenger rate per mile has never been changed whereas the freight rates have been cut in two during that period. In New York State some years ago the New York Central applied for certain legislation in connection with a branch line, and the legislature consented to pass the Bill provided the passenger rate was not over two-cents a mile. That was made the rate for a small branch of the New York Central, and the company accepted it over all its line running through New York State. The same thing has happened in Michigan where the Grand Trunk passes. The legislature made it a two cent a mile passenger rate and all the railways in that state have had to accept it. In Europe passenger rates have been greatly reduced and are much lower in Europe than in America. One great object of cheap travel is that labour can move from place to place where it may obtain work. In Canada the passenger rates are altogether too high and we need not expect the North-west to be settled as it would be if passenger rates on railways were reduced. Cheap travel tends to promote business and to bind the country together. It will pay the railways to have a two cent fate because the statistics prove that if you reduce the price of anything the consumption increases, and Hon. Mr. PREFONTAINE.
so if you reduce the railway rate, travel will increase. We know that In connection with the post offices of every country, whenever you reduce the postal rate you increase the revenue and you increase the efficiency of the service. If there should be some loss to the railways by reducing the rate, and I do not admit if, that loss should be made up on the freight rates if it has to be made up at all. A large portion of our community use the railways mainly for travel and for fifty years they have had no consideration and never will until parliament steps in and compels our railways to reduce the passenger rate. It is said that the rates on the Canadian Pacific Railway cannot be interfered with because of their charter, but tiie rates on the Canadian Northern Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway can be reduced and if you fix the maximum rates on these lines at two cents a mile the Canadian Pacific Railway will have to accept it, and I believe they will be glad to accept it.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Let me put the hon. gentleman in order. There is nothing before the committee. Mr. Maclean moves that we return to the consideration of clause 264.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Findlay Maclean: I call the attention of tiie House to a short editorial which appeared in the ' Farmers' Weekly Sun.' It says :
The distance from Detroit to Chicago via the Grand Trunk Railway is 319 miles, and the single fare is $6.25. The distance from Detroit to Toronto is 226 miles, and the single fare is $6.60. The reason for the lower fare to Chicago, though the distance is ninety-three miles greater, is that the legislature of Michigan has fixed the passenger rate through that State at two cents per mile, while the rate in Ontario is three cents per mile. The Grand Trunk Railway in Michigan received not one dollar of public aid. The Grand Trunk Railway in Canada received enormous loans from our government, and to-day owes us for principal and interest of loans made to it and to Ontario lines which it absorbed nearly $50,000,000. Is our our parliament doing anything to-day to secure for the people of Canada the same passenger rate over the Grand Trunk Railway as that road gives to the people of Michigan ? It is doing nothing in that direction. On the contrary, according to Hon. Mr. Prdfontaine, the Dominion government proposes to take many millions more of our money and give it to the company which charges us fifty per cent more for passenger rates than it charges our neighbours across the line.
Is it not humiliating that in this country where we have given the Grand Trunk Railway $50,000,000 of public money, they charge us three cents a mile to travel while they only charge two cents to the people of the United States who never gave them a cent ? If we are to go on in this paternal way subsidizing railroads let us take a leaf out of the book of our neighbours and let us compel the railways to carry our people

for two cents a mile. The New York Central Railway has a valuable franchise in this country in connection with the old Canada Southern and it is carrying the people of the state of New York for two cents a mile, but the moment it crosses the Canadian border it charges our people three cents. That is not creditable to this parliament and should not be allowed to continue. The ' Montreal Witness ' of a few days ago says editorially :
In connection with the foolish, not to say almost criminal, prodigality with which successive governments have given bonuses to all and sundry, especially railway and bridge promoters, a Toronto contemporary points out that half of the St. Clair tunnel which is in the state of Michigan has been assessed for the present year by the board of state tax commissioners for $1,800,000, and the tax for 1903 that has been levied upon this assessment is $24,640. On the other hand, the tax on the half of the tunnel which lies in Ontario is only $753. The railway fare over the Grand Trunk Railway on the Michigan side of the river is two cents a mile ; on the Ontario side it is three cents a mile. For the 2'23 miles of the St. Clair frontier tunnel built in Canada the Grand Trunk Railway received a subsidy of $375,000, but received no public aid for the portion which is in the United States territory. This is a little story of a kind that has been infinitely repeated, and it carries its own moral.
I intend to test this question in the House both now and later on. At a later stage of the Bill, I shall propose an amendment to the effect that the maximum passenger tariff rate shall not exceed two cents a mile. Such a rate would be in the interests of the people and of the railways and go a long way to promote the interchange of business and give the people what they are entitled to. They have a penny per mile travel all over England. In Australia and Hungary, where the railways are owned by the government, people travel at less than a cent a mile, and that has been found to pay. The experience of European countries, especially Austria and Hungary, is that every reduction in the rates has resulted in profits to the railway as well as to the people.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: First-class fares ?


William Findlay Maclean: No, but they have a rate lower than one cent a mile, which allows labour to go wherever there is work to be had. What I repeat is that the experience of every country in Europe shows that where the government has reduced the rate of passenger travel, the result has been beneficial both to the railways and the public. There has been no agitation in the states of New York and Michigan for the reduction of passenger travel there. The great companies have accepted the reduction and find that their business has increased enormously. But people will say, New York is much more thickly populated than Ontario. My reply to this is that in New York there are many more lines of 197
railway, and each railway in that state has comparatively no more travel than any railway in Ontario. Yet not one of them has ever asked that the rate be put back to three cents or raised to any extent whatever.


Mr. DAVIS.: Suppose you were to take a cent off the passenger rate, would you not have to add it on to the freight rates ? The railway companies have to live.


William Findlay Maclean: If you reduce the cost of travel you increase the income. That is proved by the post office and every public statistics where reductions have taken place. But even if it should have to come out of the freight receipts, why should not the people who travel be entitled to as much consideration as those who use the railways for the purposes of freight ? Are not the people who settle in the North-west entitled to a reasonable rate when they want to travel east. At present the rates are almost prohibitive, and that is one of the great grievances complained of in that country. I am not advocating something which has not stood the test of experience. Experience has proved that a reduction in the passenger rates works both in the interests of the railway companies and the public. It is humiliating that in this country, where we have given the railway companies so much public money and such great franchises, where we have assisted them by providing terminal facilities at our ocean ports, we should get nothing in return in the way of reduced charges for railway travel. I propose to insert a subclause to section 264 to this effect:	' The maximum
passenger travel shall not exceed two cents a mile.'


Mr. HEYD.: Is that two-cent rate universal in the United States ?


William Findlay Maclean: No, it is a matter of state control, as far as I can gather ; but all through the states of New York and Michigan, they. have a two-cent rate.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Are those rates fixed by the railway commission or are they incorporated in the Railway Acts ?


William Findlay Maclean: The two-cent passenger rate in New York was due to a small amendment to a single Bill which went through the legislature at Albany. There was an agreement with a certain road to carry people at the rate of two cents a mile. The New York Central Railway applied to incorporate this road with its own, and the state legislature said :	You may
take it if you will extend that two-cent rate over all your system. The New York Central Railway accepted this offer and all the other railway companies followed suit. In the state of Michigan, there is an Act of the legislature providing that every road running across that state shall eliarge a two-cent rate.


Mr. McCRBARY.: I hope the hon. gentleman, when he brings down his amendment to this Bill, will furnish the statistics on which he bases his argument. He has selected two of the most thickly populated states of the union and the most thickly populated portions of those states as an illustration of his argument. While I would like to see the rate reduced if possible to one cent a mile, we ought not to do anything which would not be reasonable, and the hon. gentleman ought to be able to inform us what induced the legislatures of New York and Michigan to reduce those rates. He ought to inform us what is the number of passengers per mile per day that is carried over railways in those states, also the payment of train hands, the cost of labour and other matters. As a matter of fact, while in the west we have higher rates for ordinary traffic, we have low rates in other respects. We have rates for immigrants coming in from the boundary line, which average about one cent per mile as far as Edmonton, over all the railways. That is a lower rate than is prevalent in the United States. Our passenger rates from Winnipeg to the east are as low as from points in North Dakota and Minnesota to the east, and any person who wants to travel east during certain seasons of the year can get a rate of about two cents per mile.


William Findlay Maclean: I presented the facts which the hon. gentleman inquires for to the House on a former occasion, and they will be found in ' Hansard.' My hon. friend refers to the special rates given immigrants and others. But what I want to see is a rate for general travel. There are all kinds of cut rates. The press have the privilege of travelling at a two-cent rate per mile, commercial travellers at 2J, and a great many other people get incidental reduction, but what I want is a maximum passenger rate for the ordinary individual and not a number of preferred classes. Let us have equal and equitable treatment for every one. It may be that if the railway companies to-day would cut off their passes, which they give to people who furnish them with freights, and if they would do away with the preferred rates which they give many classes, they would be able to give a general rate of two cents per mile. I have seen a good deal of railway travelling in this country, and the only man who seems to be treated without consideration is the man who pays the top fare and cannot get into a Pullman car. I have travelled considerably up and down the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I have seen the way in which these companies treat the ordinary traveller who pays three cents a mile and has to get into the ordinary first-class coach. He is not treated as he ought to be. He it is who keeps up the railways, furnishing the great-Mr. MACLEAN.
est amount of traffic, and yet he has not had one iota of consideration for fifty years. As I have told you, we have cut down freight rates time and again. There is no way to secure the reduction which I propose but by putting it on the statute-book. The railways will bluff you every time; they will jolly you along one way or another. But place this on the statute-book, and I pledge my reputation for prophecy, whatever it may be, the railways will not lose a dollar. On the contrary, the reduction will be in their own interest. But they will never make this reduction unless we compel them to do so. You must do what the state of New York did. What the state of Michigan did. And the argument does not hold that the reduction benefits the railways because these are thickly populated states. In thickly populated states there are a great many railroads, while, in our own Northwest, while there is a sparse population, there is a comparatively small railway mileage.


William Forsythe McCreary: But it makes a difference in the number of passengers per mile.


William Findlay Maclean: But where the passenger rates are reduced the consumption of passenger traffic- if I may use that expression-increases. Why, that is what makes the world go round in a commercial sense; it is the basis of our progress-reduce the price and you increase the consumption. We have given the Grand Trunk already $50,000,000 of the peoples' money. We have given the Canadian Pacific between $100,000,000 and $200,000,000 of the people's money. And I am told that we are to give the Grand Trunk $135,000,000 more of the people's money. And we have not got a single concession for the people who travel for all those grants. Now is the time to make a deal with the Grand Trunk, when it is proposed to give them this immense bonus. One condition of the contract with them should be that the maximum passenger rate should be two cents per mile, I have had a great deal of communication with the people of this country on one question or another that I happened to have raised in this House, but on no question have I met with so much approval and encouragement from the ordinary citizens as in regard to this question of railway travel. People want cheaper traffic and they are entitled to it, and they are not proposing


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am afraid the hon. gentleman is making light of the telephone.


William Findlay Maclean: The telephone is a pretty good thing too. And the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals thinks it is a pretty good thing, I believe. It is a very profitable enterprise in this country, is the telephone business. And the railroad business is profitable too. That being the case, there is no reason why this legislature should not

intervene on behalf of the people. It is our duty to intervene. And I intend to test this) House on this question both now and at a later stage, for that is what we are entitled to. It is what the people of other countries get by insisting on it, and it is a thing that we shall never get unless we put our demands squarely on the statute-book.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) is great on theory, but his theories will not work out in practice. Of course, some parts of this country are thickly populated, and his theory might work out well enough there; but the great part of our country is sparsely settled and his theory could not be put in practice as affecting those portions. We are about appointing a railway commission. But, if you are going to cover all the details by the Act that we are now passings what will be left for the commission to do ? The safest thing for us to do is to leave these matters in the hands of these commisssioners. They will be in a better position

The accidental breaking of glass in the ceiling of the Chamber here interrupted the proceedings for a few minutes.


Peter Macdonald: Will the committee please come to order.


Thomas Osborne Davis: When the interruption took place, I was saying that, to my mind, there was not much use in appointing a railway commission if all the details with regard to the management of the railways were to be put in the Railway Bill. The hon. member for East York has cited the case of the state of New York with reference to railway rates. In that case the rates were incorporated in the Railway Act of the state. But if the hon. gentleman will take the trouble to study the facts with regard to all the states of the union, he will find out that in more than two-thirds of those states the rates are placed under the control of the railway commission of the state. So, I think we are safe in leaving the matter under the control of the commission here. While I would like to see the people get as low rates as they can, I could not support the amendment. You cannot run the railways without money. They have to pay interest, they have to pay their fixed charges, if nothing on their stock, and they have to pay their running expenses. In order to do that they must have revenue, and if you are going to take it off the passenger rate you will have to put it on the freight rate. So how much better off will the people be ? The hon. gentleman may pose as the champion of the people's rights, but When the people begin to understand that the hon. gentleman wants to take it off their collar and put it on their vest, they will see there is not much in his argument.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman stated a moment ago that this might work in some of the populous states of the United 1974
States, but not in Canada. Now, if he will support me, I will make my amendment cover Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces only, and leave the North-west country at the present rate. Would he like to have that ? He has not answered my argument at all. I said the reduction in the passenger rate, wherever it has been tried throughout the world, results in an increase of revenue to the company, therefore the reduction will not necessarily come out of the freight rates. We could teach the railway companies something by reducing the rate on the Intercolonial, where we have the control, to two cents a mile. That would force all the competing roads to come down to the same rate.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: What effect would that have?


William Findlay Maclean: It would make the other roads come to that rate, exactly what has happened in the state of New York.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Last year the earnings from passenger traffic on the Intercolonial were $1,770,000. If we reduce that by 334 per cent, which would be the equivalent of reducing the rate from three cents to two cents a mile, you would at once cut off $600,000. The net earnings on the road last year was $96,000. If the hon. gentleman's idea is carried out, there would result a loss on the Intercolonial of over $600,000.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman need only apply that argument to the reduction of postage to see where he would land. He is a Liberal, or professes to be, and one of the doctrines which the Liberals have advocated for years in fiscal matters, is that if you reduce the price you increase the consumption, and you benefit both sides. He can talk as he likes. I am not defending a theory, I am giving evidence which has been brought out in other countries showing that where a reduction in the passenger rate has taken place there has been a corresponding increase in the revenue to make it up.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Why not reduce it down to one cent, then ?


William Findlay Maclean: Well, I will again refer the hon. gentleman to the Post Office Department. Formerly it cost a shilling to carry a letter, a reduction was made by steps until it got down to the penny letter, all over the empire.


Mr. RUSSELL.: It would require very careful calculation to find out what the effect of the reduction would be. That is a calculation that only the board of railway commissioners would be qualified to make, and it is one which this House is apparently disqualified to make.


William Findlay Maclean: It is just such a calculation as the people of New York and Michigan have made through their legislatures, and has been vindicated by results. The experiment in the post office was

made by the parliament of Great Britain and the parliament of Canada, and not by any commission. We have had fifty years' experience of three cents a mile on railroads; is the time never to come when we are to have a reduction ? Are we never to have a reasonable railroad travel in this country? The commission can study the question and report to parliament upon it. But I do not propose to give up my functions as a member of parliament to a commission. I have made up my mind on the subject, X have studied the question fully for a number of years, and I am convinced that I am right. I hope the hon. gentlemen in this House will study the question and see if they cannot get some more light on it.


Benjamin Russell: If the hon. gentleman has made so many calculations, let him give them to us.


William Findlay Maclean: I have given them time after time. The statement I make is this, that the governments in Europe which control their railway rates have felt themselves justified in reducing the passenger rate in consequence of the experience they have acquired that reduced rates meant more traffic. The evidence is there, and the proof of the success of the experiment is that there is no agitation in any states of the union where they have a two cent passenger rate, to put up the rate. I am not doing this, as some hon. gentlemen have intimated, for some ulterior purpose ; I am bringing this subject up here in a simple, direct way. I do not want to have my motives impugned as have been done by some hon. gentlemen. I may be a little ahead of my time, but if a person is ahead of his time he has a right to be heard, even in this House, and to give a reason for the faith that is in him. I have given a reason why the House should study this question, and I have given a reason why my amendment should be made part of the Railway Act of this country.


Thomas Osborne Davis: If the hon. gentleman's theory is right that a lower passenger rate per mile would increase the earning power of the roads, how is it that the very clever men at the head of the railroads of this country have not adopted a two cent rate long ago ? The hon. gentleman appears to place his judgment above the judgment of all the railroad men of this country, because none of them appear to he convinced that they would increase the earning power of their roads by adopting a rate of two cents per mile for passengers.


Peter Macdonald: Mr. Maclean moves to add a subsection to section 204, which will read as follows :
The maximum passenger tariff shall not
exceed two cents a mile.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In justice to the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), we


William Findlay Maclean: must give him the credit of having persistently advocated this rate before the House, although it has been somewhat unpopular. It is one that may not meet with the approval of the railway companies, and may not meet with the approval of the majority of the members of this House ; but at least this must he said in his behalf, that so far as we can judge he is sincere in his belief that it would result in no great harm to the railway companies, and would not much affect their earnings, and at the same time it would be a substantial benefit to the travelling public. He has given data to substantiate the allegations he has made. He has quoted statistics of travel in the state of New York. Now the state of New York might be regarded as not furnishing a fair comparison for Canada because it is much more populous even than Ontario. But as the hon. member says, the travel is divided up amongst a larger number of railways, and therefore the proportionate travel in Canada would be in all probability quite as great for each as the proportion of travel even in the state of New York. But if that comparison is not thought to be fair, let us go to Michigan, with a population very much like that of the province of Ontario. It is settled in much the same way, and is not more thickly populated than Ontario. If in the state of Michigan the railway companies can carry on their operations by charging only two cents a mile, and make in pay, it seems to me their case furnishes a strong argument that the same thing could be done in the province of Ontario. I have no doubt whatever that if a reduction of one cent a mile was made on the ordinary travel, it would result in an increase of at least one-third more travel. Why are so many people deprived of the advantage of travel who otherwise would do so ? It is because of the want of means to enable them to travel. If you reduce the cost you will increase the traffic. If you reduce it one-third, you will undoubtedly Increase the number of people who will travel over the railroads. Now, take the railway from Toronto to Windsor, about 220 miles. It is stated, and I believe the statement is correct, coming from the source it does, that you pay as much to travel from Toronto to Windsor as you do from Detroit to Chicago, a distance of 290 miles. The conditions in Northern Indiana and southern Michigan are very much the same as in that portion of the country between Windsor and Toronto. The country is as thickly settled in the province of Ontario as either in northern Indiana or southern Michigan and if you look at the trains as you pass along you will find that the number travelling is very much the same. It may be said that that is an argument against my contention that if you reduce the rates there will be more travel, but if you take the time when three cents a mile was the rate you will find that the travel

was not as heavy In northern Indiana and southern Michigan as it was after a reduction was made to the extent of one cent a mile. The amount of travel is much greater on account of it. Why is it that the Grand Trunk Railway which passes through the province of Ontario charge the Ontario farmer or traveller, no matter what locality he comes from, three cents a mile, notwithstanding the fact that the road has been heavily subsidized in this country, while the same road goes across the border where it gets no assistance from the state and charges the citizen of that country only two cents a mile for the same accommodation ? Passenger traffic is not like freight; the traveller walks on the train and walks off again, and it costs the company nothing to load or unload. If a party desired to ship his goods a distance of 3,000 miles the company would give him a reduction on account of the long distance. They would not charge him the same rate per ton upon his goods as if they were shipped a distance of 100 miles. They would give a reduction on account of increased mileage, but it is not so with ordinary passenger travel. The passenger pays his three cents a mile whether he is travelling ten miles, fifty miles, one hundred -miles, or three hundred miles, while, if freight is to be carried, the railway will give a substantial reduction on account of mileage. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals and other hon. members of this House have defended the provision in the Railway Bill giving the railway commission the right to make a distinction in the case of the transportation of freight for long distances as compared with short distances, hut, for the traveller there is no reduction made unless at certain competing points where competition between railway companies or competition between steamboats and railways compels the railway to make a reduction. This being the case it seems to me, that, while I do not think the hon. gentleman's resolution can properly apply to all sections of the country, I think it could apply to the great province of Ontario at least, which is as thickly settled as the state of Michigan or the state of New York, leaving out the great cities in these two states, and where the travel is just as great proportionately to the number of people as it is in the state of Michigan or the state of New York. There is no doubt whatever that a large proportion, if not all, of the loss sustained by a reduction of the passenger rate to the extent of one cent a mile would be made up by the increased number who would travel.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that if we were to fix the rate at two cents a mile and if we appoint a railway commission and the railway commission makes an investigation and finds that the earning power of the company is not sufficient, taking this reduction into consideration, to pay the fixed charges on the road
besides the running expenses, the railway commission would then have to raise the freight rates, because it would have no power to increase passenger rates. That being the case, according to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Bast Grey (Mr. Sproule) and the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) you would force the farmer who does not travel at all


William Findlay Maclean: He should travel.


Thomas Osborne Davis: To pay for some gentlemen down east to travel as much as they like.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose that one hund-_ [DOT]red men were travelling on the railway' and that the railway company charged them $3 each, suppose they reduced that to $2 each, that would be $100 of a loss. If thirty-three more men travelled would you not make up your earnings ? You would not require to add it to the freight rates at all.


Thomas Osborne Davis: We have no guarantee that thirty-three more men would travel except the hon. gentleman's statement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We do know this


Peter Macdonald: Order, order; this is quite irregular.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman

\Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER. Each hon. gentleman should make his speech and after his speech is finished he should sit down and allow some other hon. gentleman to answer it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) asked a question and he is willing to allow me an opportunity of answering it. I was about to say that where the railway companies give special rates for certain days it is a well known fact that there is a very large increase in the amount of traffic, and so, upon the same parity of reasoning, we might eo-me to the conclusion that if you reduce the rates the amount of travel would be increased proportionately.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I am quite willing to admit that if the railway company made a special rate for one, two, or three days the public will take advantage of it, but that does not warrant us in coming to the conclusion that if you have a special rate for twelve months in the year, people are going to travel alii the time. The hon. gentleman assumes that thirty-three more men out of one hundred are going to travel, but it is only an assumption on his part. To my mind it is much better to leave this matter under the control of the railway commission. When they are seized of the facts they can come to a conclusion, and if they do come to the conclusion that it is advisable to reduce the rate to two cents a mile they will direct that such a reduction be made. That is what we are appointing them to do. We expect them to make a reasonable rate in reference to passengers and also in regard

to freight. If we were to adopt a flat rate of two cents a mile I know how it would affect the people in my part of the country. As a matter of fact there are some portions of the Canadian Pacific Railway which do not pay at all, while there are other portions of the road which pay much better, and these have to make up what the company lose on the portions that do not pay. If we reduced the earning power of the road by reducing the passenger rate on the Canadian Pacific Railway what would it mean ? It would mean that we would have a large increase perhaps in the rates on [DOT] the traffic that would ship over that road and the government, having no control over the freight rates, we would have to suffer. We paid $3,500,000 to carry the wheat last year from Winnipeg to Port Arthur. I would like to ask the hon. member for East Grey, or the hon. member for East York, how many of the producers of that wheat travel up and down the country. Virtually they do not travel at all, and those who are producing the wealth of the country would be taxed for the benefit of the gentlemen who do the travelling and who want to take a few holidays.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Do the railway statistics justify any change at all ? Iam quite willing to admit that it would be an agreeable thing to the people to be allowed to travel at two cents a mile. I suppose a larger number would be willing to travel at one cent a mile, and that the number would be increased very much more if they were allowed to travel for nothing. How would it affect the railway companies ? Take the report of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals and he says that the entire earnings of the railways from passenger traffic last year was $22,000,000 and from freight traffic $53,000,000. Suppose we reduce that $22,000,000 by reducing the amount per mile at which passengers can travel and what will be the result ? At three cents per mile the actual net earnings of the railway companies last year were $26,000,000. The capital of the companies was $1,098,000,000, so that the earnings were a little over 2 per cent on our Canadian railways. I do not think any of us would say that with an invested capital of $1,098,000,000, 2 per cent is too much. I doubt if we were engaged in the railway business we would be content with a dividend of 2 per cent, but if we reduced those earnings by reducing the rate from 3 to 2 cents a mile it would reduce the earnings to $19,000,000, or there would be a loss of one-quarter of a cent in the dividend so that the dividend would be 1J per cent. When we realize the immense sum of money it takes to build and equip a railway, and when we find what the financial results are on all our railways at the end of the year, that they actually cannot declare a dividend of more than 2 per cent, then the 3 cent rate appears to me to be comparatively small. It may appear that Mr. DAVIS.
some railways are making money on the 3 cent rate, but there is no doubt that some are losing and if the doctrine of my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) were applied the Canadian railways would be $500,000 behind last year. It may be a desirable thing to have a rate of two cents per mile but to my mind the Canadian railways cannot afford to carry passengers at a less rate than they are charging to-day.
Amendment (Mr. Maclean) negatived.
On section 279,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We were considering in connection with subclause 3 an amendment to the effect that in case the railway company discovered any fraud in the line of a shipper putting high priced freights in a car along with freights of a lower standard, the company should have the right to add 50 per cent or any other reasonable percentage, on their ordinary freight charge as a penalty upon the wrong-doer. It was suggested that if that were done one or more of the penalizing clauses should be struck out so that the shipper acting fraudulently in this manner should not be subject to the penalties named in the Act which might be enforced by a court, and also to the increased rate of freight which could be charged. I have considered the matter, and I am convinced that the effect of enabling the company to exact an additional charge for the freight in such a case, would be more deterrent than any other mode of imposing a penalty. As a matter of fact these penalties are not very much if at all enforced; the railway companies do not follow them up by complaining, and as a result the person who perpetrates this fraud escapes. This is not a question in which the railway companies are alone interested, but it is a question in which the general public and honest shippers have also great interest. Mr. Maclean in one of his reports says that this has become a very great grievance, and he thought some remedy ought be applied to stop it. Most of the shippers ship from their own sidings and it is impossible to detect this fraud in many cases so that it is often successfully perpetrated. Suppose a man is shipping one hundred barrels of flour, he might put in half a dozen barrels filled with articles which should pay) a very much higher rate. It is only occasionally that discovery is made and the opinion of persons with whom I have discussed the question is that it would be better to make the penalty higher than lower.
I do not think it would be well for us to strike out any of the other penalties, because in my opinion they are not any more severe than they ought to be. I may say that the penalties mentioned in this Act are very much lower than the corresponding penalties in tiie United States; indeed some penalties which we fix at $1,000 are $10,000 or $20,000 in the United States. If after an experi-

ence of this clause there are good reasons why it should not be continued in the law, parliament can at any time eliminate that feature of the measure.


Mr. KEMP.: I regret to have to take up the time of the committee in regard to this matter again, but my excuse is that it seems to strike at the very root of the principle upon which the agitation was carried on for the appointment of a railway commission. The minister has stated that this penalty is to meet extreme cases which perhaps may not occur frequently, and he has cited a case in which flour, which is shipped at a comparatively low rate of freight, might have included in that carload of flour several barrels of expensive merchandise. A condition of affairs similar to that might exist. But we all know that the railroads, not actually entirely under the law, have had inspectors in their employ for many years past for the purpose of preventing fraud of this kind ; and when we think of the watchfulness of the railways, the cleverness of their officers, the way their inspectors watch every move of the shippers, we can well understand what the hon. minister says, how impossible it would be for that to happen except in very rare cases. As the minister says, this is to meet extreme cases ; but all the shippers of the country would come under this clause and you would have all the intricacies of the classifications to deal with. 1 would like for a few minutes to draw attention to the history of the agitation which led up to the idea of a railway commission in this country. The press of the country, headed, I think I may say, by a very able journalist in Toronto, a friend of the minister for many years past, has long felt that a railway commission was necessary. That gentleman whose name I need not mention has said to me on many occasions that his aim and object was to have a railway commission appointed. He is very well informed upon the subject, and his pen has written many clever articles upon it. The whole agitation with respect to a railway commission was based upon the idea that it would be for the purpose of dealing with freight rates and freight classifications. When the first draft of this Bill was introduced into the House last year, it was a very much larger, and more extensive and more complicated measure than the present one. It was at once noticed by those who had advocated a commission that the proposed commission was for the purpose of dealing with a great number of matters which had not been agitated in the public press, and in regard to which the public had not expressed any opinion. Coming, then, to the part of this Bill which deals with the subject of tolls and tariffs, I contend that the clause which the minister wishes to add to section 3, in addition to
the penalties there named, which I do not object to, strikes at the root of the whole difficulty, or a great part of it, which we have had to deal with in this country. There have been grievances on the part of the public with respect to freight rates, and I would like to take up the attention of the House for a few minutes in reading what the public Opinion on {his question in the city of Toronto, representing the shippers of the province of Ontario, was in the year 1900. I made these observations when I had the honour of being president of the Board of Trade of Toronto, and they were endorsed unanimously by that board, not at a meeting of the council of the board, but at a public meeting of the board. I read these remarks to show what led up to this agitation with respect to tolls, classifications, &e. This is what I said :
I feel I would exceed my duties if, in the discussion of this question, I should voice sentiments which were not strictly a fair interpretation of views prevailing in this city and vicinity. It is necessary, in order to come to any conclusion with a degree of fairness, to have in view the frequent and unreasonable demands and charges made against railway corporations, resulting often in placing out of court, not only those who are guilty of such inconsistencies, but also hampering others who desire to approach matters of difference with the utmost fairness.
During the past few years there has been a noticeable tendency on the part of our railways, in order to increase their revenue, to steadily advance freight rates to the utmost limit of what it is deemed in their judgment the * traffic will stand ' ; also to withdraw from shippers privileges which they have hitherto enjoyed, and to enforce new regulations favourable to themselves, and frequently of corresponding disadvantage to shippers.
The situation has been particularly favourable to the railways, as they have enjoyed almost absolute authority in dealing with the public, who have come to look upon them largely as supreme in everything which affects their own interests.
The determination to explore a field which was beyond the jurisdiction of common carriers, resulted in bringing to the attention of the public, through the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, a discussion regarding extra rates over and above regular freight tariffs on petroleum products, and the desire to charge an extra 50 per cent under the owners' risk rule, is also illustrative of a wrong interpretation of what was expedient on the part of the railways.
The strict adherence to the most severe interpretation of every rule jointly framed by the railways, not leaving opportunities for special treatment when occasion warrants, which would exist if only one road were interested, has a tendency to cultivate a spirit of restless antipathy against the railways, which is a natural result in a democrative country like this.
I would also like to refer to the opinion of Mr. Peleg Howland, a gentleman who is at the head of the wholesale hardware firm of H. S. Howland, Sons & Company, Limited, the largest wholesale hardware firm perhaps in Toronto. He said in 1900 :


Hon.  A. G.@: Blair,
Minister of Railways and Canals,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Out.
Dear Sir,-On the 5th inst. I wrote you a letter, under instruction from the Freight Rates Committee of the Board of Trade, complaining of a rule adopted by the Canadian Joint Freight Association, under which the railways have recently been charging 50 per cent additional for the carriage of goods more or less subject to being broken, pilfered or otherwise damaged, unless shipped at " owner's risk.' It was then pointed out how irritating this clause was to the people throughout the country, and the request was made that the matter should receive your earliest possible attention. The rule is apparently being continued by the railway companies, and the effect can only be most exasperating.
The only attention, however, that this communication has so far received is a formal acknowledgment from yourself when received, and a similar acknowledgment, received from your secretary a week ago. This matter is of the utmost importance to the whole country, and de-Mr. KEMP.
mands prompt attention, and I am instructed by the committee to again draw your attention to the character of the communication which has been forwarded to you, and to request that you should give the matter the earliest possible attention. We naturally look to the government of the country for protection from such outrageous treatment by these corporations, and if we cannot get protection through the medium which is obviously the only reasonable one to appeal the first, we will have to see what public discussion will do to arouse a proper sense in the community of the outrage that is being perpetrated, in the hope that we may in this way obtain relief.
As particularly requested in my former letter, we would like to know on what authority this rule is based. There is apparently nothing in the Railway Act to justify it. The members of our board are urging for another meeting of the committee, and the chairman is anxious to hear from you before calling the committee together.
Awaiting the honour of an early reply,
I am yours truly,
(Sgd.) EDGAR A. WILLS.
Secretary.
Dictated by Mr. Hugh Blain,
Chairman of the Committee.
The result of that correspondence was this. I do not know exactly what pressure was brought to bear upon the Minister of Railways at that time by the railway company ; but at any rate these companies saw that the idea of their being allowed to enforce a penalty of 50 per cent over and above their tolls was so unpopular that they discontinued the charge, and although the law is there, they have not seen fit to exact that penalty from shippers. This Bill was framed for the purpose of regulating tolls, and as regards subsection 3 of section 279, I may say that I am perfectly willing that the shipper should be subjected to the same penalty as the railway company. I am not objecting to that, although it must be remembered that in the old Act no such penalty exists and that there has been none against the shipper up to this particular time. The hon. minister, however, in this Bill sees fit to exact a penalty of $100 to $1,000 where a shipper falsely, with intent to defraud, bills goods in order to get a lower rate of freight than he is entitled to. I do not object to that, because that is a penalty which would be subject to the jurisdiction of the court. The shipper charged with this offence must be brought before the pi'oper tribunal and given a proper trial but to put it in the power of the railway companies-knowing, as we do, their tendency to exact fines and tolls which are unfair and illegal, knowing how impossible it is to ever get compensation from them, knowing how many shippers and thousands of dollars of claims against railway companies which it is impossible to collect- and I am talking now from personal experience-knowing all these things. I say that to put in a clause of that character just in order to meet a few extreme cases is most unfair. We know the difficulty of making a proper classification and the lia-

bility of clerks to make mistakes. There is not one shipper in five hundred who has ever seen this classification which is made by the railway companies. It was never submitted to the public for consideration. The railway companies never asked the public to pass upon it. In this book there are three thousand different items, and not one shipper in five hundred has ever seen the book. So that every day there are chances of misunderstandings and mistakes which are not wilful. There are, however, opportunities for dishonest men to evade the law, and these should come under the section which provides a penalty of from $100 to $1,000 to be inflicted by the courts ; but to give a railway company, in addition to that, the power to collect of its own motion a penalty for the improper classification of freight according to the law which they made themselves-to enable them to inflict a penalty of 50 per cent in addition to the regular freight rate in such cases, is an outrage. I have already drawn the attention of the hon. minister to the fact that this classification has not been authorized by the Governor in Council, and the hon. minister referred to it as an unjustifiable step on the part of the railway company.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I referred to their issuing it without authority.


Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. minister deserves a great deal of credit. He has shown a great deal of courage. He has taken great pains in preparing this Bill. I have admired the stand he has taken. He has not allowed himself to be put aside by either the railway companies or the shippers or the public, and he evidently intends to treat the public fairly ; but the public have not had facilities for reaching the ear of the minister to the same extent as the railway companies. In the brief of the railway companies, this very principle I am discussing is plainly put forward. Here is the report which the representatives of the railway companies put before the minister some weeks ago. They distinctly point out in their memorandum No. 1 some of the matters over which the board should not have jurisdiction. Among these are claims against the companies to recover back tolls alleged to be improper, claims for improper discrimination in the carriage of traffic, and for breaches of various provisions respecting tolls, and claims of the companies against the shippers. That is the stand they take, and it is an unreasonable one. I do not object to the shipper being subjected to a penalty for false billing, but I object to him being made subject to a double penalty. If this Bill passes, I expect that the commission will be appointed. It will not be very long before we have another session. As soon as the commission is appointed, let it take up this question of classification. The people will then have a tribunal before which they can come, such
as they never had before, and they can there submit their views with respect to classification. But to say, as is done by this amendment, that this classification, in regard to which the public have never been heard, shall not only be binding on the shipper, but have attached to it this unreasonable proposition is not right. If the hon. minister could hear the views of the merchants and shippers all over the country, in every town and village, he would see the force of my plea. How many of these classifications are distributed throughout the country ? Not one shipper in five hundred has ever seen one of them. Yet every shipper is to be bound by it. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I hope that the hon. minister will not insist upon his amendment. If next session he should find that it is necessary to provide for a double penalty against the shipper, then let him bring forward a provision to that effect. But now, with the reform already effected, let us pause until the public have an opportunity to be heard.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: I understand that the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) objects to the amendment that has been proposed, on the ground that the fine is sufficient and that the double penalty should not be charged.


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes.


Archibald Campbell: As I read this section, it seems all right. It is directed against the man who by means of false billing, false classification, false report of weight or any other means shall ' knowingly, wilfully, or shall willingly suffer or permit any person or persons to obtain transportation for goods at less than the regular toll ' and subjects him to a penalty of not more than $1,000, nor less than $100. And the amendment provides, in addition, that the shipper shall be subject to double the rate of the freight to be charged. It seems to me that any one who is guilty of the crimes mentioned, false billing, false classification, false report of weight, and who wilfully tries to impose upon the railway by these means can hardly be subject to too heavy a penalty. The case mentioned by the hon. member for East Toronto, of a clerk not knowing the classification, and making a mistake would not come under this section at all, for the offence must be wilful, and must have for its object the defrauding of the company before the clause can apply. I do not think the penalty provided by the section and the amendment is too heavy, because one guilty of such acts should be most severely punished.


Albert Edward Kemp: Might I explain to the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) a matter with regard to which I do not think he sees as I do. I may not be able to make it clear, but I will try. As I said, and as he understands, I do not object to the section

as it stood originally, but what I object to is the double penalty which can be exacted by the railway company without reference to the commission. One accused under subsection 3, as it stands, comes within the jurisdiction of the commission, or a magistrate to be tried. But under the amendment, it is left in the power of the railway company to seize the goods. They are as likely to make mistakes as a shipper is,-perhaps more so. And yet, without the intervention of a magistrate or any other tribunal, the company would be in a position to exact the penalty, for they have control of the goods. And even though they might be wrong, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) knows how difficult it is to get a refund from railways when the money is once in their Ciands. If the shipper were brought before a magistrate, or before the commission to have the case tried and decided, it would not be so serious. But under this amendment, it is left to the railway company to decide the ease without the intervention of any court.


Mr. WADE.: This amendment is in the interest of the honest shipper. Suppose two men doing business side by side ; one ships his goods properly and the other makes a false classification. In such a case the dishonest man has a great advantage over the honest man. For that reason I am in favour of the amendment proposed. As has been pointed out, the section does not affect the man who makes a mistake, therefore the argument of the hon. member for East Toronto on that point is to be set aside. That hon. gentleman says that very few men ever saw this classification. It is not necessary for the shipper to see the classification all he has to do is to correctly describe his goods and the classification is made for him. If he has correctly described his goods, there can be no penalty and he cannot be made liable. This is meant for people who, for instance, describe loaded cartridge shells as bolts and nuts, or pickles in glass and baking powder and spices as vinegar and coffee; electric goods as hardware ; liquors as canned goods, and so on. It is intended to meet the case of men who send out a carload described as hay, but which includes smoked meats and other commodities, or a carload described as settlers' effects, afterwards found to contain over a hundred packages of groceries and hardware, that under true classification would have added over $128 to the freight. These are the men we are trying to get at, and we are doing it in the interest of the honest shipper. These false descriptions of goods are by no means of rare occurrence. The complaint is general from one end of the country to the other. And. for my part, if one of the penalties is to be dropped, I would rather drop the thousand dollars and keep the penalty provided for in the amendment, for it is quick Mr. KEMP.
in its operation and will do more in a month to check the evil complained of than the other will do in years. For the railway company would be very slow to proceed to enforce a fine or penalty against one of its customers. It would sooner suffer the loss than do so, especially where there is strong competition. If we were only trying to protect the railway company, we might leave the section as it stands, feeling that if the railway companies do not look after their own interest, the fault is their own. But we are trying to protect the honest shipper against the dishonest shipper. And I do not see why any of us should feel bound to stand up here and advocate the rights of men who wilfully describe their goods wrongly in order to get a cheaper rate of freight than they are entitled to.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) makes the point that(this thing can occur but seldom, and that we are establishing a principle of a serious character when there is no real need for our doing so. I do not know what my hon friend's information on that question may be, but I would not think he had wide knowledge unless he had taken pains to inquire of the railway companies on the subject. But I can point out to him that Mr. McLean, whose business it was to make very careful inquiry into all matters of railway interest when he was advising us on the subject of a railway commission, and who had no particular leaning,
I presume, either for or against the railway companies, felt it his duty to advise us that this was a grievance of very considerable magnitude, that it was attracting a great deal of attention, and that honest shippers were very desirous that, so far as possible, protection should be afforded them against dishonest shippers. My hon. friend has read some instances to give the committee an idea of the nature of this sort of fraud. I am told that the cases are of very frequent occurrence indeed, that the tendency is growing, and that it needs to be stopped, not in the interests of the railway company alone-though they might fairly, as a matter of justice, apply to this parliament to put means into their hands whereby imposition and fraud upon them could be prevented-but in the interests of the business community at large. We may well consider that interest as paramount, and one that we. ought to serve. I am surprised to hear from my hon. friend that this suggestion is unpopular in Toronto and meets with such indignation. I cannot conceive that any body would be offended or dissatisfied with this legislation if he were an honest shipper ; and I am sure my hon. friend is not doing justice to the business people of Toronto when he says that there is such widespread dissatisfaction with this proposal. I think the hon. gentleman would find that even in Toronto the business men would be pre-

pared to support any legislation which would prevent this class of fraud from being perpetrated. It is a monstrous wroug upon honest men that this thing should go on. I think I made out my case clearly when I spoke to the committee before, and the hon. gentleman did not succeed in answering it. I showed that it is an extremely difficult thing for the railways to follow it up. They may open the barrels, or boxes, or cases, when they are shipped at some central point, or some large station where they have a large staff of clerks. But even then they could only examine an occasional box, or barrel, or package, even in those large centres where the cars are loaded. But when the cars are loaded at a remote point, or on private sidings alongside the factory or warehouse, they cannot follow up the fraud. At best they can only have inspection made of a limited number of packages, so as to test the character of the whole.


Albert Edward Kemp: In regard to remote sidings as the hon. gentleman mentioned, will he not admit that at remote sidings there are riot usually merchants who carry on an extensive business, and consequently it is not likely that expensive hardware would be put into a carload of hay or flour ? It is not at these points that the railways have agents and inspectors.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Granted, but the hon. gentleman must remember that if you take a carload of boxes or barrels it would not be possible to have an inspection that would cover anything more than a sample here and there. But we know, if there is a deliberate purpose to defraud, with what ingenuity the shipper will place his goods or his packages so as if possible to remove suspicion. At the very best therefore the company cannot make anything but a limited inspection of the goods that are being forwarded. I think the bon. gentleman is in error when he speaks about the dissatisfaction among business men. He has referred to the facts connected with the issue of that freight classification, and the difficulties which they complain of as to changes in tbe classification. No doubt there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction in the classification, with the manner perhaps in which it is done, with the way in which they put out these freight classifications without authority. But that is a totally different subject. There is no connection between the classification and these persons who are perpetrating frauds, except in a very indirect way. Nobody need make any mistake about the classification. The shipper has it entirely in his own hands to make the shipment properly, to bill tbe goods in accordance with the classification. There is no reason why he should complain of this clause, or of the penalties which it is proposed to impose upon the fraudulent shopper. If he wants to do business honestly it is much easier for him to act honestly than dishonestly. The subject of classification is one which we have thoroughly dealt with in this Bill. The hon. gentleman will remember that the board have entire control of the subject. I think I can safely say that iu no legislation which has been passed in any state of the neighbouring republic have they got the same comprehensive grasp of the matter of classification as we have here. Now the hon. gentleman seems to think that an innocent shipper coming into this country would be subjected to these penalties. There is no reason for any such fear. A man must have an intent to perpetrate a fraud, or else he is not subject to the additional toll. We could not safeguard the innocent shipper any better than we have done. I take it that nobody can possibly complain of this proposed amendment who does not sympathize with men who wish to act dishonestly. It is not in the interest of the public at large that people should be afforded an opportunity of committing fraud, or that they should be free from penalties when they do commit fraud upon railway companies any more than if the fraud was committed against a private individual.


Albert Edward Kemp: May I ask the minister a question as to how this extra penalty will be collected ? Does the hon. minister claim that under this amendment a man will be tried before a magistrate or the commission? Or does he understand, as I understand, that the company may act arbitrarily, and that they may be able to collect this additional amount the same as the ordinary freight rate before the goods are delivered ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman is not referring now to the penalty which we are imposing.


Albert Edward Kemp: I am satisfied with the original penalty.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the railway company discovers that any person has been billing falsely, or has been shipping iu the fraudulent way which has been described, they may make a demand upon the shipper to pay this extra fifty per cent advance upon the toll, and the shipper would be obliged, if he wanted to get his goods at once, to pay that fifty per cent on receiving them. He would not need to resort to legal proceedings to get the goods, or to compel the surrender of the goods to him by the company if he paid that amount. But having paid that amount under protest, he then has several courses open to him from which he can choose. If he did not wish to take any legal proceedings against the railway company to recover that amount, he could apply to the board of railway commission-i ers and the board would have power to

make an order to compel ttie refund of that amount. All he would suffer would be the temporary deprivation of that extra fifty per cent, if he were wrongfully charged with fraud. Then he might have another remedy. He might apply to a solicitor to take a writ of replevin, or a process similar to that-I do not know what the procedure is in Ontario-and seize the articles upon tendering the amount which he claimed was due, and have the thing fought out in that way. There are various ways in which the matter could be tried out; but undoubtedly, before he could compel the voluntary surrender of the goods, he would have to pay the amount the company charged.


Albert Edward Kemp: That is what I understood. The way I understand the amendment to section 3, the man would be properly tried before a proper tribunal, he would not be left entirely in the hands of the railway company. Now, I want to say that the railway company is just as liable to make mistakes as the shipper, and more liable, because the railways employ clerks and employ inspectors who frequently make great mistakes in regard to this classification. Does the minister think that after a man has paid the $5 or $10 that the railways might collect under this amendment, the shipper is going to take the trouble to employ a lawyer and go before a legal tribunal? From personal experience, and the experience of other gentlemen in this House, we know that it is often better to abandon a claim against a railway than to go to expensive litigation with them, or take any trouble about it. The whole policy of the railways is to make it as troublesome as possible for any man to collect money from them, no matter how legitimate the claim may be, with the idea that the shipper will abandon his claim and drop it. There will be thousands and thousands of claims arising out of this all the time. The hon. minister says : Let the people bill honestly and 1)hey will not be subject to this penalty. I am all the time hearing the idea put forth that all the shippers are dishonest. I am tired of that sort of talk. We know very well that the machinery that the railways have is of such a character that you cannot get at the man who performs the act and it is very exasperating. Shippers are at their wits' end all the time to know what to do in regard to it. How is a man going to bill his goods and know that he will bill them right ? Under the classification every article is divided and subdivided under many different heads. Under hardware there are fifty divisions or more. I see in this book five or six pages of divisions and subdivisions of hardware. Even in the article of hobby-horses there are nine or ten different divisions and subdivisions, everything is divided and subdivided. Before passing such a stringent law, let the public have the opportunity of going before the commission and discussing this classifica-Hon Mr. BLAIR.
tiou. May I ask the hon. minister if this great evil which he now puts forth with so much strength and ability on behalf of the railway companies has been such that the railway companies have suggested! this amendment to him ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Mr. McLean suggested it to me first in his report.


Albert Edward Kemp: The railways suggested it within the last few weeks did they not ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Albert Edward Kemp: Up to that time had the railways made any representations to the hon. minister in reference to this grievance which has been so much talked of to-day ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I never heard from them about it.


Albert Edward Kemp: Here we have this great cry of the hon. minister about this grievance that the railways have against the public and now we have the hon. minister =aying that they never, until a few weeks ago, came before him and called it to his attention. Is not that a proof that he should allow this matter to rest untill next session and until the appointment of a commission so that the public can have an opportunity of going before this impartial tribunal and stating their views in regard to this classification, a classification in regard to which the public has not been heard and in regard to which they want to be heard ?


Mr. REID (Grenville).: I listened to the speech of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals and I must say that I judge it to be simply the speech of a lawyer or of a gentleman who has never had any business experience in the way of shipping.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I never did have.


John Dowsley Reid: I speak as one who has had a little experience in shipping. This clause, I think, is a very unjust one. The hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) stated that in the ease of settlers' effects a farmer might ship some groceries or articles of that kind in his car and thus commit a wrong.


Fletcher Bath Wade: 103 packages of groceries.


John Dowsley Reid: Admitting that to be a fact, suppose a farmer were to ship


Fletcher Bath Wade: This was not a farmer.


John Dowsley Reid: Suppose a settler were going from Ontario to Manitoba and when putting his effects into the car he decided, in addition, to take up some groceries that he would require when he went there. Does the hon. member (Mr. Wade) think it would be a crime to put those

groceries into that car and consign them as settlers' effects ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: That is not the case that I referred to.


John Dowsley Reid: Under this section he would be committing a fraud, and the minute the car arrived at its destination and the agent reported that he had found groceries in the car the settler would be liable to $1,000 fine. That would be a great hardship. Supposing a person were shipping some groceries, of some kind or another, some of which are packed in tins and some in bottles. There is a different classification of bottles. The one is charged for at a higher rate than the other. A merchant might innocently ship three cases of goods


Fletcher Bath Wade: Have you ever seen whiskey in tins ?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, I have seen [DOT]whiskey in tins. It does not make any difference, whether it is whiskey or what it is. If the merchant consigned three cases of merchandise the agent would bill them at the proper rate whether they were in tins or whether they were in packages.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Does the hon. gentleman think it would be right to bill enamel ware as tinware ?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not say that would be right, but the person billing it might bill it as five or ten cases of merchandise or hardware without really intending to commit a wrong and not knowing that these articles were classified differently; yet, for billing it in that way he would be liable to $1,000 fine. I have never heard of any complaints whatever from the railways in regard to billing. In fact, the agents know exactly what manufacturers are producing. They know how they put up their goods, and they look after the billing so that they can protect themselves. The hon. minister states that Mr. McLean is the gentleman who recommended this. I believe he received his information from the railway companies. They are always anxious to get clauses of this kind in that will protect them. I believe he should have asked some of the leading merchants and shippers and farmers of this country to consult with him in order to see what was actually necessary and to give them a chance to have their rights protected as well. In this instance the hon. minister is not protecting the shipper at all, and he is not protecting the farmer.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am willing to meet the suggestion of the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) if this is satisfactory to *him. I suggest that we strike out the *words I proposed to insert and substitute the following :-	.
The board may make regulations providing that any such person

That is the biller.
Shall in addition to the regular toll be liable to pay to the company such further toll, not exceeding fifty per cent of the regular charge.
That will give the commission an opportunity of studying the question and they may make a regulation requiring that an additional toll shall be paid.


Albert Edward Kemp: Do I understand the hon. minister to say that this leaves it to the judgment of the commission and that they may make such a regulation if they think it right and proper ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They are not required to do it, but they may.


Albert Edward Kemp: Were they required to do it before ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, they were not required. It was provided in the original amendment that the shipper should be liable. I understand that the hon. member desired that an ' opportunity should be afforded by the lapse of time to have this classification looked into by the board. I am meeting his view by this change.


Albert Edward Kemp: I think the hon. minister is fair in regard to this matter. He thoroughly understands that I do not want to obstruct the Bill in any way. I want to emphasize the fact again, that I believe in the $1,000 penalty; I believe that dishonest shippers ought be penalized, but what I want is that the public now entering on this new regime will have an opportunity of being heard; an opportunity which they have not had under the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. I would like to have it made clear that the minister means that the board will have the power, after looking into this matter, to insert such a clause. That is the meaning of it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is it.


Mr. LENNOX.: Is the committee to understand that the question of the $1,000 penalty is left to the board, or only the question of the increased tolls ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Only the question of increased toll, and it is not a fixed $1,000 penalty; it is a varying penalty in the judgment of the tribunal before which the person may be charged.


John Dowsley Reid: The shipper will have a right to appeal from the railway company.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The board has power to inquire into it and to refund the amount.

On section 238-weeds on company's land-company must remove, &c.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I propose to add after tlie heading ' prevention of the liability for tires ' the following :
The company shall at all times maintain and keep its right of way free and clear of any inflammable matter.
Subsection 2. Whenever any fire starts upon the right of way of the company and spreads to the adjoining property, or whenever a fire is started in any property adjoining the right of way or the property of the company, by a spark from a locomotive ; in any action for damages resulting from any such fire the burden of proof that any such fire was not caused by the negligence of the company, shall be upon the company.


Mr. TAYLOR.: What does the minister mean by ' inflammable ' matter ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Any matter that would take fire.


George Taylor: What about ties and lumber that they are obliged to keep along the track ?
* The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. That is part of their business. This refers to stray inflammable stuff on their right of way.


Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: I beg to move the following amendment :
Whenever damage is caused to any lands and fences, plantations or buildings and their contents by fire started by a railway locomotive, the company making use of such locomotive shall be responsible for such damage and may be sued for the recovery of such damage in any court of competent jurisdiction.
The amendment of the Minister of Railways does not change the law as it stands now. It only changes the law as to the evidence, but not as to the responsibility of the company. The purpose of my amendment is to change the law as to the responsibility of the company. Under the amendment of the minister, although it may be proved that the company started the fire and burned the property, they are not responsible if they bring their own employees and prove that their locomotives were properly constructed. The House will see at once that the position of the farmer or the proprietor who has suffered from the fire is very precarious under such a law, and that it would be unwise for him to bring up a lawsuit against the company under such conditions, because the result would depend upon the evidence which is in the hands of the defendant. As I have already explained to the House when I moved last session, and this session the second reading of my Bill, this very same question has been brought up in the Imperial House of Commons. In 1900, a Bill similar to the amendment I now move was presented to the Eng-


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: lish House of Commons and in spite of the opposition of the leader of the House, such was the feeling in England on this matter, that the second reading of that Bill was carried by a vote of 303 against 80. I do not know why this measure has not since become law in England, if it be not on account of the delay in parliamentary procedure there. Whatever be the case, we are not obliged to wait in Canada until the English people have adopted such a law if we once come to the conclusion that it is a proper law for us to enact here. I hold that the railway companies are enjoying a privilege in this respect which they should not enjoy. I find that according to common law of all the provinces the railway companies are responsible. The Privy Council in the case of Roy vs. the Canadian Pacific Railway has decided that the common law of England and the common law of France, which we follow in the province of Quebec, are similar on this point, and that it is only because the power of parliament is supreme that railway companies are not responsible in such a case. Judge Blackburn, in the case of Jones vs. Festiniog Railway Company, said :
The general rule of common law is correctly given in Fletcher v. Rylands, that when a man brings or uses a thing of a dangerous nature on his own land he must keep it in at his own peril, and is liable for the consequence if it escapes and does injury to his neighbour. Here the defendants were using a locomotive engine with no express parliamentary power making lawful that use, and they are therefore at common law bound to keep the engines from doing injury ; and if the sparks escape and cause damage. the defendants are liable for the consequence, though no actual negligence be shown on their part.
This is very clear. If you use a locomotive, and if parliament has not given you that special power, though its use may be perfectly lawful, and though the locomotive may be as perfect as it can be, though you have not been negligent at all according to the common law of England and also of France, you are responsible if you cause damage to another. This is the principle of common law, based upon the Roman law, that you must not cause any damage to another, that you must not make a use of your property so as to interfere with the rights of others. The railway companies [DOT]have the right to the enjoyment of their property, their track and their lands, but they have not the right to injure the property of their neighbours. They have no more right to throw sparks on the land of another than any one has a right to throw stones on the property of his neighbour. This same measure was brought into the English House of Commons in the session of 1900, and that House expressed its approval of it by a vote of 303 to 80. I think this amendment should be adopted for the protection of the farmers, and all who wish that the railway companies shall not be put above the common

law of this country should vote iu favour of it. This is the proper time, when we are revising the Railway Act. If this law is not adopted to-day, it will he adopted later on, there is no doubt about it, but it may take some years.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: 1 heartily concur in the remarks that have been made by the hon. member for St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers). I think his amendment should be adopted, because, as he has said, even in England, public opinion is ripe for such a change in the law. I have read very carefully the debates which took place in the House of Commons in England, in 1900 when this law was proposed there, because I was personally interested in the case of Roy vs. the Canadian Pacific Railway, which went before the Privy Council. I do not see why this parliament, when granting special privileges to railway companies, should not bind them to respect, not the privileges, but the rights by common law of the riparian proprietors. When a locomotive emits sparks and causes injury to neighbouring lands or houses or barns, the company should be liable in damages for such injury. I therefore concur heartily in the remarks made by my kon. friend, and I hope that the House will agree to this amendment. If it does not pass this year, it will come up every session until we have the principle sanctioned by this parliament, that the railway company shall not enjoy any special privileges as regards this very important matter.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The amendment which was moved by me is to the effect that the company shall be obliged to disprove negligence. It is very difficult to prove negligence against a railway company under such circumstances, so much so that people who have suffered damage for loss in this way, as a general rule fail to secure any redress from the company, because they have no means of establishing by proof that the company failed to use the best and most modern appliances and equipment for the purpose of preventing sparks flying from their locomotives. Therefore, the principle which governs has been modified to this extent, that the company shall be liable for fires caused by sparks from locomotives in the event of their failing to prove that they were not guilty of negligence either as to the way in which they used their locomotive or as to the condition in whicli the locomotive was. My hon. friend proposes to revolutionize the law and the principles which govern altogether. He proposes to have it enacted that wherever a railway company traversing the country causes a fire to take place, no matter how innocently, no matter how fully the company may have complied with [DOT] every condition and every requirement of the law they shall, because they caused the
fire, make good the damage. The principle of the common law, as my hon. friend stated, is this, that when parliament incorporates a railway company and authorizes it to run railway trains, it necessarily implies that the company may exercise, if it does so properly, the powers which have been Conferred upon it by law ; and if, in the lawful exercise of such powers, it necessarily does damage to anybody, that damage follows as a necessary consequence of the lawful exercise of that power, and therefore the company should not be liable to make it good. That is the principle of the common law, and that principle I would not feel just now like recommending the committee to deviate from.


Mr. BELCOURT.: I am in favour of the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers). When this matter was up before, I stated my views. Until the judgment of the Privy Council in the Canadian Pacific Railway vs. Roy, I always entertained the opinion that section 288 of the Railway Act (1888), covered the case, and that, in the province of Quebec at all events, railway companies were responsible for the damages which they caused through the loss of buildings by fires caused by sparks from their engines.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That was the universal jurisprudence until that decision.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Yes, and I think that that jurisprudence was justified by the provisions of section 288 :
Company not Relieved from legal Liability by Inspection or anything done hereunder.
No inspection had under this Act, and nothing in this Act contained, and nothing done or ordered or omitted to be done or ordered, under or by virtue of the provisions of this Act, shall relieve, or be construed to relieve, any company of or from any liability or responsibility resting upon it by law, either towards Her Majesty or towards any person, or the wife or husband, parent or child, executor or administrator, tutor or curator, heir or personal representative of any person, for anything done or omitted to be done by such company, or for any wrongful act, neglect or default, misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance, of such company, or in any manner or way to lessen such liability or responsibility, or in any way to weaken or diminish the liability or responsibility of any such company, under the laws in force in the province in which such liability or responsibility arises.
In the province of Quebec it has been a subject of contention whether a railway, exercising a trade which is of a dengerous character, was responsible for damages, and the weight of opinion was that, under the French law-which provides that any person who exercises a calling or trade of a dangerous character does so at their own risk and is responsible for the damages, whether the most modern appliances were used or not, and whether or not everything was done to prevent accidents-the railway I companies were responsible. The simple

fact of exercising a trade which is dangerous makes the person exercising it responsible for all damages resulting from the exercise of such trade. He exercises it at his own peril, irrespective of the question whether he shows negligence or not. Under that principle of the French law, coupled with the provision of section 288, which says that nothing shall diminish the liability or responsibility of any company under the laws of the province where such responsibility or liability exists, the railway companies, in the province of Quebec, were held responsible for the damages caused by sparks from their engines. That jurisprudence was set aside by the decision of the Privy Council in the Canadian Pacific Railway and Roy.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Privy Council said that their decision was according to the law in the province of Quebec.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Quite so, and for that reason 1 think that the time has come when this parliament should accept the principle which in my opinion governs in the French law, and make the railway companies responsible for the accidents due to the dangerous nature of their operation, irrespective of the question of negligence. When a company is exercising a dangerous occupation, it is doing so for its own benefit, and not for the benefit of the public. In fact, in many instances, these railways are a detriment to the public and particularly to the farmer. It is no advantage for a farmer to have his land cut up by a railway and be subjected, from one end of the year to the other, to all the inconveniences which follow the operation of a railway ; and therefore it seems to me that when damage is caused, it should be paid by the person who benefits from the operation of the thing causing the damage. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, it will be impossible for a farmer to establish negligence on the part of the railway company, and wiry should he be compelled, not only to put up with the annoyance of having a railway pass through his property, but also with the risk of having his buildings destroyed by fire and the loss which such fires may cause to him. It seems to me that the amendment is justified by law and equity and should be enacted, particularly at preseni, when railways are so numerous and the danger from fire has so increased. In dealing with matters of this kind, it is well to know what has been done elsewhere. In England the feeling has grown very largely that railway companies should be made liable for every accident due to their operation. In 1900, a measure was submitted in the Imperial House of Commons to this effect, which passed Its second reading but did not go any further.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Never heard of it since.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: 


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Possibly, but the hon. gentleman knows how diflicult it is in the Imperial House of Commons to have a measure of this sort adopted. In any event, there was a very large majority of the House voted for the second reading in 1900.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: A majority of those present at the time.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I take it that the fact that the second reading was voted by a large majority is pretty good evidence that the feeling of the House was in favour of the Bill ; and the fact that it did not become law is no answer to my contention. At all events, I give this fact to the committee for what it is worth, and I am not one of those who think that we should adopt or refuse to adopt legislation simply because a precedent has been set in either respect elsewhere. I base my support for this amendment on the ground that it is based on a good principle in law, which is to-day sanctioned by many courts in the British colonies, as for instance in cases where damages are caused by the operation of a nuisance. Take the case of a sawmill operated in a city. It has been frequently held that the people in the neighbourhood are entitled to damages caused by the vibration and smoke, and in many instances people have been granted injunctions to restrain corporations from exercising businesses of that sort. Take the case of a livery stable in the city of Montreal.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The case of Drysdale ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Yes, Mr. Drysdale had a livery stable on St. Denis street which is an important residential section of the city, and he was restrained by the courts from carrying on his business because of the bad odour from the stable.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Is there any analogy between that case and the present one ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Yes, there is this analogy that in each case the parties are carrying on a business which is dangerous or a nuisance, and should either be restrained from doing it or be made responsible.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: But parliament gave a charter to the railway company which it did not do to Mr. Drysdale.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Quite true, but if the railway company, in the exercise of its functions, causes damage, why should it not be responsible ? The principle is as old as the hills, as old as the Roman law. that you must not use your property so as to cause damage to others. There is no principle in law which has been more universally adopted by all civilized countries than this, and it seems to me that the amend-

ment of my bon. friend from St. John's and Iberville is based upon that principle.
Mr. McCarthy. I think that the effect of the amendment of the hon. member foist. John's and Iberville will be to alter the law as it has existed for years.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not at all. It will be reverting to the law.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: That may be the case in the province of Quebec, but the highest Court of Appeal has declared that its judgment in Roy and the Canadian Pacific Railway was according to the law as it has always existed in the province of Quebec and elsewhere. I am unable to see any injustice in the law as it stands, and as it has been interpreted by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and I think it is much better to leave the law as it has been settled by that court. It is very desirable that there should be stability in our laws and jurisprudence, and I think we should hesitate before unsettling what the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has decided.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I am in favour of this amendment. I believe that we should have a universal law throughout the Dominion with regard to this matter. It was quite clear that the judgment of the Privy Council, in the case of Roy and the Canadian Pacific Railway, contradicts what, hitherto had been declared by our courts to be the law in the province of Quebec and to be what the legislature of that province intended, and in that sense this judgment operates injustice to that province. It is equally unjust to the province of Ontario because each province ought to enjoy the same rights.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I hope my hon. friend does not understand me to mean that this amendment should apply only to the province of Quebec 1


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is generally conceded in the province of Quebec that the law as it is now is unjust to the people of that province. In other words, if that province had the power to make the law they would make it different from what we have made it. I can see the justice of that so far as the province of Quebec goes, and I can see the fairness of the law to be put into effect here and practically rescind or repeal the law of the Dominion as declared by the decision of the Privy Council. There is another reason why I think it Would be well for the railway companies themselves to have the law changed in this way. Under the amendment proposed by the Minister of Railways and Canals the onus is simply put upon the railway to prove that they were not negligent. In that case all they would have to do would be to call experts-and they have plenty of them always at hand-to show that they 198
are using the best appliances, and that, therefore, there was no negligence-
Mr. McCarthy. May I ask the hon. gentleman a question ? Would that satisfy the amendment of the Minister of Railways and Canals ? Would it not be necessary for them to call the servants or employees Who were in charge of the engine at the time ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is partly what they would do, of course. I was trying to see how this would work out practically in court, for that is what we must do here-find out how the parties' rights would work out in court if there was a fire and the party damaged brought action. First, the railway company would bring in experts to prove that the engine was made in the best way. Then they would call the fireman and engine driver to show that the proper appliances were on the engine and all that kind of thing. That is, the company would call the employees who are interested in showing that they had carried out the Instructions given them. I am not going to suggest that these employees would perjure themselves, but, of course, they would not be likely to notice their own negligence. And, as any evidence on the other side Would have to depend upon a knowledge of facts within control of the company, the 'judge would simply have to decide on the weight of evidence though it might not necessarily be evidence clearly true. Besides, if it is not well settled that the railway must pay under any circumstances, the effect will be that the railways that do the best they can to avoid fires will be paying for railways that are careless. In this way :	If it were fairly settled and fairly
understod by judges and arbitrators settling the damages to be paid to landowners for land taken for the construction of the railway, that a man could not necessarily recover for damage to property or buildings due to sparks from the locomotives-if it were fairly understood that negligence must be proved before damages could be recovered in such cases-that fact would have to be taken into consideration and allowed for the landowner when his lands Were being taken. It would be just the same as with the drainage law. If the works of the company interfere with the drainage and so injure the property, that fact is taken into consideration and damages are allowed. Whether the damage is from water or from fire, the railway is the cause of the damage, and there should be an allowance in one case as in the other. And, if the farmer cannot recover piece by piece as the damage from fire occurs-if he is not paid by the job, so to speak-he must re-eovet in a lump sum for the danger he is likely to be subject to. In that case, a careful company, one not likely to cause one-tenth as many fires as another would, yet have to pay just as much in damages



as a.more careless company, for the arbitrators would have no means of differentiating between companies in that way and would be obliged to make allowance for this prospective damage on the basis of common experience and allow it as compensation when the lands are taken. But if we settle it that companies are to pay as they burn up crops or effect other injury by fire, this element would be eliminated in assessing the damage of lands through which the railway runs. And so it would be sound legislation to enact clearly that the companies are to be responsible absolutely for the damage they do in the way suggested by the hon. member who moved the amendment. That amendment would be preferable to the bne proposed by the minister.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON.: I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but I have a "word or two to say in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. member foist. John's and Iberville (Mr. Demers). The farmers of my county, and, I suppose of every county, lose heavily every year by fires caused by locomotives. And it is almost impossible to get anything from the company. And, if you go into court to *prove that the fire was due to the negligence of the company's employees, you must risk all your property in the attempt, for, when they are sued by a farmer in such a case, the railway company carry the case from court to court to defeat him. A farm-'er's whole property is placed in jeopardy if he attempts to recover damages, no matter how clear it may be that the fire was due to sparks from the locomotive. Something 'should be done to compel the railway companies to be careful, and, when they are not careful, but burn down our crops, fences and buildings, they should be compelled to pay. In the county of Kent only last sum-Iner, I saw from four to five acres of standing timber and a field of grain burning: The farmer could not prove that the fire originated from the railway engine, though everybody knew that that was the cause of it. The consequence was that the farmer had to suffer the loss. I think the Minister of Railways ought to take up this matter seriously and consent to this amendment moved by the hon. member for St. John's and Iberville (Mr. Demers).


Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).: I would not have risen to speak if the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) who is a layman, had not set me an example by speaking' before I did. It is not my intention to deal with the legal aspect of the question, but taking a broad common sense view of it. I quite agree with the remarks of those who favour the amendment. It means simply this, that if any man who is engaged in an occupation caused damage, he should pay for the damage. I sympathize with those legal gentlemen who have spoken about the difficulty of proving their case Mr. LANCASTER.
from the employees of the defendant. I have had some experience in that line in a case that happened some time ago. In my own village a young lawyer had brought a case before the court, and the only person he had to examine was the defendant. After the defendant was examined he said : Your honour, that is my case. The judge was an older practitioner than the young lawyer ; he leaned over the desk and said to him : I will give you some advice, always be vei-y careful in taking a case where you have got to rely entirely on the evidence of the defendant. I think that is a good principle of law, at least it is a common sense view. I think people who suffer damage from a railway ought to be very careful in taking a case where they rely altogether upon the employees of the defendant, who would be the parties who caused the damage if they had left their smokestack open, or something of that kind. Other countries are looking into this matter as well as Canada. In the United States, that country which has so many railways and which takes such precautions in the in-tei-est of the people, we find that the states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Wisconsin and South Cai-olina, have adopted laws similar to the amendment which the hon. member for St. Johns and Iberville is introducing. The significant fact has been mentioned by some speakers that the House of Commons in; England, without toeing lashed up to it by any party whip, passed by such a large majority the second reading of this Bill. There must be some reason for it, and I should take it as being the free expression of opinion of the English House of Commons. I do not know why it could have passed the second reading by such a large majority as was mentioned, 220, unless there was a very strong feeling in its favour. I am in favour of the amendment, and I intend to support it.


Mr. GOURLEY.: If this amendment is adopted, it will change the whole course of common law in Canada, let us well understand that. Now, I have great respect for the legal ability of the hon. gentleman from St. John's and Iberville (Mr. Demers), whom I have had the pleasure of knowing intimately ; I have great respect for his judgment and legal knowledge, and would willingly support any measure that he brought forwai-d, were I not constrained to oppose it on strictly legal grounds. Now, with regard to our friends across the border, I have often noticed that they would pass a law today, the courts would discuss it, and in three or four years it would disappear from the statute-book, and they would go back to the sound principles of the common law, which they inherited from the old country. We ought not to depart from the common law of this country, unless for the most cogent and sound reasons. I have listened to the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) with

great deference on many occasions, but I do not think that he puts this question today in a very strong light. He was talking about a trial in court. Why, we have the same difficulty in every case we try. Very often we cannot make out our case. I have had dozens of cases where I knew my client was right, but I was unable to prove my points, therefore the court had to rule against me. Would it be wise for me, because I failed in my evidence, to come to parliament and ask them to pass a law to enable me to get damages under circumstances where I had failed to meet the requirements of the law ? All that I understand to be alleged in favour of this amendment, is that it is difficult in some cases to make out your case against the railway company. Is this parliament going to adopt as a sound reason for legislation, that because a man fails to make out his case it must be made easier for him to do so ? There may be hardship, but hardship is the common argument that makes bad law. Whenever a man commences to talk about hardship, and desires parliament to legislate to remove the hardship, then he is inviting us to make a bad law. There is always hardship, and always will be, in the administration of any system of law. You never can get any principle of law that will fit every particular case. The common law of England says that damages must be awarded and paid, if the railway company does damage. But suppose you fail to show that the railway company has caused damage do you want this parliament to pronounce judgment against the railway company because there was a failure of evidence ? But I go further. I was a student of civil law at one time, and I say, with all deference to those gentlemen who are practising the civil law, that I will not defer to them in the knowledge of the principles of civil law. I undertake to say, after reading the judgment of the Privy Council, that it is a correct exposition of the civil law of Rome, as it is of the common law of this country. Therefore, these hon. gentlemen from Quebec are asking us not only to repeal the civil law, but also the common law of this country. I say that is a position this parliament ought not to take. The whole point is this : We charter a railway company, or any other company, and give it the necessary rights to carry on its business. Now, remember I am talking to lawyers and men of common sense. I don't want to hear any layman get up in this parliament and differentiate himself from a lawyer, when we are talking about common sense. The law is the essence of common sense, and ^man who has common sense and who has good judgment, is always a good lawyer. I want this parliament to understand that when we charter a railway company to run a railway, we charter it with the implied agreement that it will run that railway without do-198}
ing wrong to any individual. They are bound to build the railway and to run it according to the latest improvements, with the most correct appliances. If we pass a law saying they shall be liable for damages, without proof of negligence we are acting without common sense and without common honesty, and that is what is sought to be done here. We charter a railway company, the company take our charter and build their line, use the best engines and cars, then when an accident happens, if they can show that they have done all that the law requires them to do, the law says they are not liable, because there is no negligence.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Even if they killed the hon. gentleman with the best appliances, they would not be liable ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: They are not liable unless they have committed negligence in some way, unless they have done some wrong, that is the basic principle. This is a very important question, and must not be treated flippantly, as some people have sought to treat it. This is a very serious proposition of law.


Louis Philippe Demers: Does not the common law say that they are liable if they do not keep their fire on their own property ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I am not bound to answer that question. The hon. gentleman had his brief as counsel. Why did he not go into court and show this to the court and to the judge ? Do not ask me a question like that. That was a question for the court, and what I understand now is that you want to alter the law because you tried your case badly. I do not propose to blame the common law of England for the blunders that counsel may make. I have made mistakes myself in trying cases, but I have never dreamed of coming to parliament to get my blunders corrected. I have always concealed them and said nothing about them. We are asked to change the common law of England, and hon. gentlemen are urging the judgment of the Privy Council in support of the change. I will undertake to say that any student who reads that judgment which is attacked will see that it is one of the most admirable deliverances that has ever been pronounced in any court in this country ; and for us to be called upon to change the whole law of this empire, because somebody has tried his case badly is to ask something that we should not be willing to concede. According to the statement of the hon. member for St. John's and Iberville (Mr. Demers) there was something that was not presented to the court. There was some evidence that was not presented, arid If the evidence was not presented to the court the court certainly could not decide upon that which it did not have before it. I will undertake to say, in view of the interrup-

tion of the hon. gentleman, that the case was not tried well. 1 say let the law stand, and let the next man who tries this case do it properly. I am sure if my hon. friend from Gasp6 (Mr. Lemieux) had been associated with the trial of that case the evidence would have been perfect.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gourley) a question ? I would ask him if he could point out the difference between his attitude now and the altitude he took in reference to cattle-guards ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I have not taken any attitude at all in reference to cattle-guards.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Did he not take the ground in refernce to cattle-guards that the railway companies should be responsible for every accident ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I have never spoken on the subject. You will always find me advocating to-day the same principles as X have advocated previously. I am not twisting around from one principle to another. Now, X appeal to all lawyers in this House and to all common sense men


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Mr. GOURLEY-to stand by this principle of the common law and not repeal this Bill.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I am not a lawyer, but I claim to have a little common sense and in this respect, I think common sense overrides the law, and that people who suffer from negligence and carelessness on the part of railway companies should be protected. Common sense is superior to the law and there are many cases where the law is not the essence of common sense.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Peter Macdonald: There is a new clause moved by the Minister of Railways and Canals and an amendment to that clause by the hon member (Mr. Demers). Is the House ready for the question ?


Haughton Lennox: I do not think we are ready for either of these questions at present I want to call your attention to the fact that on the 26th June last when this section was being considered, I moved the following amendment:
Every company shall also, by a sufficient number of its employees to ensure the safe carrying out of the same, from time to time and as often as occasion therefor arises, and at the season of the year appearing to be the most safe and suitable for carrying out the work, burn or otherwise destroy or dispose of, all dry grass, weeds, decayed and decaying matter of every kind, and all waste material, refuse and rubbish, upon their right of way and lands, so as to prevent as far as possible fire acci-


Seymour Eugene Gourley: dentally originating upon and spreading from such right of way or lands, to the prejudice of the owners and occupiers of adjoining lands, and for every day during which the company neglects to comply with the provisions of this subsection, it shall incur a penalty of two dollars. to be recovered with costs in any court of competent jurisdiction, by any interested person suing therefor.
Have you got that amendment yet, Mr. Chairman.


Peter Macdonald: I have not.


Haughton Lennox: It appears in ' Hansard,r page 5,534, and the Minister of Railways and Canals intimated to me at the time that he would take it into consideration.


Peter Macdonald: The section to which you refer is section 238 and that has been carried. We are now discussing an entirely new section.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is a clause which says that the company shall keep all inflammable matter from its right of way and I think that meets the intention of my hon friend (Mr. Lennox).


Haughton Lennox: I want to state my case and get your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and I think I will get a favourable ruling if you will let me be heard.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will afford the hon. gentleman every opportunity to have his amendment pronounced upon by the House.
Mi-. LENNOX. I take the position that my amendment moved on the 20th June, has not been disposed of, and until it is disposed of the section cannot be carried. The min- -ister explained at the time that there were other gentlemen who had similar amendments and that they would all be considered together. As this is an amendment to the original section, I want to have it pronounced upon now.


Peter Macdonald: Section 238 has been carried.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is no doubt that the hon. member has correctly stated the matter. He rose when section 238 was under consideration and read the amendment which he proposed to move. I see in ' Hansard ' what I said was this :
We are not at present dealing with the fire clauses. If there is any question of cutting out the long dry grass beside the track, there will be discussion of that question on a motion which is to be moved by one of the hon. gentlemen from the west. Perhaps that will be the more appropriate occasion.
I understand that my hon. friend fell into that suggestion, and gave notice that he intended to move this amendment. Of course he could not then move the amendment, because the opportunity had not arisen for

him to move it. It was not germane to the i subject under consideration. Therefore he I did not move it, but gave notice that he proposed to move it. The whole subject is I now before the committee, and this is the occasion to which I pointed. This amend* * ment which I have moved is an amendment ' which, after consideration of the different , propositions which have been made, includ- . ing my hon. friend's, I have had drafted. ' If my hon. friend is not quite satisfied with that, it is open to him to move his amendment; but it cannot be a question of any importance whether he moves it first or second, so long as he moves it. It is a distinct subject from that which we are now at. We are now at the question whether or not the company shall be liable for fires caused by the locomotives, with or without negligence. The hon. gentleman's motion, which touches the question of the removal of rubbish and all sorts of inflammable material, is another question.


Haughton Lennox: I must take issue with the hon. minister as to whether my amendment is germane to the section or not. I submit that this is the only place where it can properly come in. Section 238 provides that the company shall cause all thistles and other noxious weeds to be cut down, and provides a penalty in case the company fail to do it. I said :
I propose to move the following subsection three of this clause.
I then read the resolution and the minister suggested the postponement. It was then six o'clock, and the committee rose. When the business of the commitee was resumed at eight o'clock, I rose and addressed myself to the question of the motion that was then before the House, on section 238. I spoke at some length, and explained why my amendment was necessary. The Minister of Railways and Canals then said: Amendments in regard to this matter have been suggested by the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Scott) the member for St. John's and Iberville (Mr. Demers) and my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox). If it be agreeable to the committee I would like to name a day, say Thursday next, when I would invite the gentlemen interested In this subject to be present to discuss it. In the meantime if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) permits me, I will study his motion mean,-while and perhaps a good deal of time could be saved.
I agreed with that. I wisli to have your ruling on this matter, Mr. Chairman.


Peter Macdonald: When the hon. gentleman proposed to move to amend section 238, the hon. minister said that was not the proper place for it, that he was preparing a motion or amendment dealing with that question at some future time, and it would then be the proper time for the hon. gentleman to bring up this amendment I understand that tiie motion in my hand is the motion to which the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals referred, and therefore this is the proper time for the hon. gentleman to move his amendment, leaving section 238 as it is.


Haughton Lennox: With all respect to you, Mr. Chairman, you are not dealing with the question which I am submitting. I said that I had made my motion on the 26th of June, but it was put over. That motion has not been discussed, and it is the first motion before the Chair now. I wish your ruling on that question, and I will abide by it.


Peter Macdonald: If the motion was placed before the House and the House became seized of it, it would be reported in ' Hansard ' as having been received and put by me. Your amendment did not become a question before the committee, because it was not read by me.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. member did not hand tiie motion to the Chairman. After what I said on the subject, he coincided with that, and handed his motion to the gentleman who was assisting me.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the motion was read and handed to the Chair, unless the Chair ruled that the motion was out of order as an amendment to this clause, it must be before the House.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What is the necessity of taking up time with that discussion ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is the question of a member's right to move an amendment to any clause he desires, and unless the Chairman rules that the amendment is not a proper amendment to that clause, it must be before the committee.


Benjamin Russell: I understand. Mr. Chairman. that you have already ruled on the application of the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox). I am anxious to make a few observations on the main question. 1 understand that it has been contended that the amendment moved by the bon. member for St. John's and Iberville affects to make some change


Haughton Lennox: I rise to a point of order. I do not propose to drop this matter until I get a ruling.


Some hon. MEMBERS: It has been ruled on twice.


Peter Macdonald: My ruling is that, so far as my memory serves me-and I think it is fairly good-the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Lennox) amendment did not be, come a question. It was not handed to me. I never read it or presented it to the committee. Therefore, the committee were not seized of it. and consequently it is not a question before the committee.


Benjamin Russell: Mr. Chairman, I hope you *will excuse me for standing while you stood ; I was afraid that if I sat down I should not be able to get the floor again.


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Chairman

Some bon. MEMBERS. Order.


Haughton Lennox: If the chairman calls order, I will sit down-


Peter Macdonald: I have already given my ruling that the amendment did not become a question and consequently was not in possession of the committee.


Benjamin Russell: I was proceeding to say that there seems to be an impression on the part of some hon. members that the amendment moved by the hon. member for St John's and Iberville affects to change the principle of the common law. Now, my impression from the little reading 1 have been able to do on this line, is that the amendment does not depart from the common law at all, but simply reaffirms the principles of the common law of England as it exists to-day, and I do not understand that it differs in this respect from the civil law of old Rome. So, I think we are entirely one, both civilians and common law lawyers, on the point that if a man brings a peculiarly dangerous object on his land the effect of which is to do some damage to his neighbour, he is liable for the damage to his neighbour no matter how prudently he may have behaved, what precautions he may have taken, or how entirely clear of negligence, culpable or otherwise he may prove himself to be. My hon. friend from Colchester will remember the learned article of Sir Frederick Pollock in the * Law Quarterly Review,' which he afterwards embodied in his work or torts, in which he entered into the whole question largely upon the basis of the case of Fletcher vs. Rylands to show how clearly it was the case that if a man brought an object of a dangerous character upon his land and his act resulted in injury to his neighbour he was liable for the injury so caused. I would like to quote a brief extract from Sir Frederick Pollock's book, and his words show that the decisions have clearly covered the very point now in controversy :
The decisions of our own time have settled that one who brings fire in dangerous proximity to his neighbour's property, in such ways as by running locomotive engines on a railway without express statutory authority, or bringng a traction engine on the highway, does it at his own peril.
So, if a railway company, instead of being a corporation with a charter from parliament and having express statutory authority to run locomotives upon its railway were an individual and undertook to run locomotives without such statutory authority, and damage resulted to the property of adjacent owners, it would undoubtedly be liable. An individual running a locomo-


Peter Macdonald: five train across his own property would certainly be liable if damage were caused by sparks from the locomotive, no matter how carefully he ran the locomotive, no matter what screens he used, no matter what devices he employed or what precautions he adopted. So, it is not by virtue of the common law that railway companies are enabled to do this with impunity, it is because they are empowered by statute, and thus they have express authority to do these things. If a statute which incorporates a company gives them power to run locomotives we do not infringe that permission if we say they shall run them under the limitations that would apply to a private individual if he wanted to do the same thing. So the hon. member for St. John's and Iberville is simply asking to apply the common law of England and the civil law which is the same to this proposition of running the engines of these companies. The common law does superadd to this that in spite of the express authority given to railway companies, if they do not run tbeir engines in a careful manner, if they run them in a negligent manner, they are liable, in spite of the express authorization given to them to run the locomotives. The common law it is which gives the right of action, the statute law it is which gives the immunity where it is enjoyed by a railway company. The law, then, will be as we choose to make it, and it is a matter of ethics that we shall make it, a matter of common fair play, and justice. It is open to us to make it what we please, but, of course, it is our duty to make it square with the requirements of justice and the public welfare. Now, it may be argued that when we incorporate "railway companies and give them power to run engines and trains, we do so, not for tbeir benefit merely, but for the benefit of the public at large, and it may be said that necessarily, in some instances, in spite of all diligence, in spite of the use of the best appliances on the railway, somebody's property must be injured. It is plausible to argue that in such a ease you must simply let the damage lie where it falls. But let us consider this case in its simplest form by taking as an example the Intercolonial. For the benefit of the public generally, the government runs the Intercolonial for hundreds of miles from Montreal to Halifax. Now, it may happen that, no matter what precautions are taken, somebody's property is going to be injured. If some poor man's crop is damaged or his house burned down because of inevitable accident as a result of the operation of the line, ought the damage to be borne by the poor man whose property has been injured or by the general public ? I say there cannot be any question about that "; the public at large, the government of the Dominion should pay that man for the damage caused and the injury done to him in the prosecution of an object that is being prosecuted

for the benefit of the whole country. If that is true in the case'of the Intercolonial, I cannot see why we should not pursue the analogy in the case of all companies we incorporate. The public at large should in one shape or other bear the loss. That is to say, the railway companies would have to be responsible. If the railway companies are made responsible, they will assess the cost upon the public in the charges they make, and, in the last analysis, it will be the public that will bear the burden.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have always been told that the underlying principle of the British constitution is that parliament is supreme. If parliament is supreme when it grants privileges and rights to the railway companies I do not see why it should not equally be supreme in protecting individuals. It has been hinted this afternoon that the amendment now proposed by the hon. member for St. John's and Iberville had the effect of over-riding the common law by the civil law of Quebec. That is a mistake. 1 have here the report of the Privy Council in the famous case of Boy vs. The Canadian Pacific Kailway. Here is the judgment of the Privy Council, as given by Lord Cairns :
This permission, of course, does not authorize the thing to be done negligently or even unnecessarily to cause damage to others. Much was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent as to the peculiar jurisprudence of Quebec : but in truth there is no such difference between the law of England and the law of Quebec in this respect, as he seemed to suppose. The law of England, equally with the law of the province in question, affirms the maxim ' Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas,' but the previous state of the law, whether in Quebec, or France, or England, cannot render inoperative the positive enactment of a statute, and the whole case turns, not upon what was the common law of either country, but what is the true construction of plain words authorizing the doing of the very thing complained of.	.
Therefore, the judgment of the Privy Council in that case was not to the effect of maintaining the common law, as was explained, but of maintaining the statutory law. Well, if by a statutory law a company enjoys special privileges, why not by another statutory enactment give an individual the same privileges ? In other words, I say that if you give these companies immense powers, if you give them large privileges, I do not see why you should not give the farmer, whose properties are riparian to the property of the company, the tights enjoyed by this same company.
Amendment (Mr. L. P. Demers) agreed to.


Albert Edward Kemp: I would like to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals if he has drafted the amendment in regard to notifying certain incorporated boards of trade of the changes which might take place from time to time. He promised to do so a few days ago. .


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not undertake to introduce an amendment on the subject. The hon. gentleman mentioned the subject and asked if I would consider it, and I told him I would; but I did not say I would introduce an amendment.


Albert Edward Kemp: I understood from the minister, and my understanding is confirmed by reading Hansard that he would bring in a modified form of an amendment which I gave him.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If I did make any promise of that kind, I have not carried it out.


Albert Edward Kemp: It is plain on ' Hansard.' I am afraid he is weakening a little now. If he reads ' Hansard ' he will see that he committed himself to bringing in a resolution with regard to that matter. I did not move an amendment because I felt so satisfied that the minister would attend to it himself.


Haughton Lennox: I move as a subsection to section 238, the following
Every company shall also, by a sufficient number of its employees to ensure the safe carrying: out of the same, from time to time and as often as occasion therefor arises, and at the season of the year appearing to be the most safe and suitable for carrying out the work, burn or otherwise destroy or dispose of all dry grass, weeds, decayed and decaying matter of -every kind, and all waste material, refuse and rubbish, upon their right of way and lands, so as to prevent as far as possible fire accidentally originating upon and spreading from such right of way or lands, to the prejudice of the owners and occupiers of adjoining lands ; and for every day during which the company neglects to comply with the provisions of this subsection it shall incur a penalty of two dollars, to be recovered with costs in any court of competent jurisdiction by any interested person sung therefor. And during such time as the company fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection, such company shall, in addition to the foregoing penalties, be liable for all damage occasioned to the owner or occupier of such lands adjoining the said right of way or lands, to be recovered with costs in any court of competent jurisdiction by the person or persons injured.
This is not a condition that would be burdensome upon the railways. Some railways practically comply with it very fairly at the present time, and it is probably in their interest to do so. The railways in the neighbourhood where I live have been in the habit of burning the useless materials from time to time for their own protection, therefore, so far as they are concerned, I do not think this is absolutely necessary. But that is not the case with reference to every railway company. As the committee wiil notice, it is not a thing that is at all difficult for railways to comply with, provided they do it at suitable seasons of the year. In 'general outline, I have used the same words as the minister has adopted in reference to cutting thistles and weeds, in subsection 2

of this section. Since moving the amendments the other day I have added a clause and make a new provision, with reference to recovering damages in case of the fire spreading to the adjoining property through the neglect of the company. It is 'certainly in harmony with what we have 'done this afternoon and it is not as strin-'gent, perhaps, as the provision which has *been adopted. It merely provides that if the railway company neglect to take steps to prevent fires from originating' on their property they shall be liable to the owner or occupier of the land adjoining for the damage occasioned.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I may point out to the hon. gentleman that the amendment to which he refers is no improvement upon the clause which the committee have already adopted because the amendment I moved this afternoon in a very few words covers all the hon. gentleman's motion does :
The company shall at all times maintain and [DOT] keep its right of way free and clear of all inflammable matter.
The hon. gentleman's motion differs from this in that it names the classes of inflammable matter that ought to be removed ; beyond that it does not vary. All the matter that the hon. gentleman mentions is inflammable matter or is liable to be inflammable matter at certain seasons of the year, and all such is covered by the section as adopted. The balance of the hon. gentleman's amendment relates to the question of penalty. Well, the penalty clauses of the Bill apply to any infraction of this section, and if there is a continuance of such infraction of the law, from day to day, each day constitutes a distinct offence and subjects the company and its officers to a distinct penalty. I do not see any reason why the hon. gentleman should press the motion. I had his amendment before me and we considered it in connection with other motions that were made on the question of fire protection. The words that I have quoted seem to contain all that we require. It is true that the hon. gentleman points out that section 238 contains very much the same words, and is framed in the same manner as his motion in regard to the failure of the company to remove thistles and noxious weeds. The reason why we put both the offence and the penalty in this section was that it was so framed in the old Act. It had been in the law for many years. In this, however, we are creating a new offence; that is, neglect or refusal to remove all inflammable matter and we have made it applicable to the ordinary penal clauses of the Bill. I think the hon. gentleman's ground is more than covered.


Haughton Lennox: In reply to what the hon. gentleman has said I may say that under certain circumstances I would probably be disposed to accept the suggestion of the Mr. LENNOX.
hon. minister. I must say that I do not feel so well disposed to it at this moment as I would on ordinary occasions. I am disposed to allow everybody to speak and to finish what he may have to say and if I had been allowed to state the facts as I understood them, I do not think this difficulty would have arisen. I sat down in deference to the chairman and that hon. gentleman did not see fit to accept what I knew to be a fact.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not object to the hon. gentleman speaking.


Haughton Lennox: I exonerate the hon. minister absolutely and I must say that on more than one occasion the hon. minister has come to the rescue and given us fair-play. I think there is a distinction between what I am aiming at and what the hon. minister has covered by the amendment he has made. I refer to the position I stand in now not for the purpose of intimating that I am going to be cranky because I did not get my own way and going to get back at the hon. gentleman, but I do think if my amendment had been considered at the same time as the hon. minister's, we could have incorporated them very satisfactorily together. The second subsection, of course, deals with something that is growing. The very fact of it being cut occasions a certain amount of dead material which the section I am proposing disposes of, thus preventing the accumulation of dry material that is likely to cause fire. It may possibly be that the very strong language used by the hon. minister in his amendment covers very wide ground. The word ' inflammable ' covers probably more than was intended. The word ' inflammable ' will embrace railway ties. There is no doubt about their being inflammable. Webster says ' inflammable ' means capable of being set on fire. ' capable of being easily enkindled.' ' susceptible of combustion.' Ties are certainly capable of being set on fire, of being easily enkindled and they are susceptible of combustion. If I have any fault to find with the clause just passed I would say that it is probably too broad and is unfair to the railway company. I was not in a position at the time to call attention to my amendment but I do submit that this makes a distinct provision upon an important point in reference to the action of the railway company. There is a distinct pointing out of what the railway companies shall do. This is not an extreme provision and it is going to result in increased., safety to the people proceeding along the railway and the people who own the adjoining land. Now, I think that even if we can come to the conclusion that the section as enacted by the hon .minister will cover the ground, yet defining just what the company should do and leading to increased vigilance upon their part, the section which I propose ought to be passed.

Amendment (Mr. Lennox) negatived; yeas, 25; nays, 44.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Mr. SCOTT moved that the committee revert to the consideration of section 24.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. SCOTT.: I did not see the proposition moved by the Minister of Railways and Canals in reference to fire-guards before it was adopted by the committee. That provision empowers the board of railway commissioners to order such fire-guards as are required in any part of the country. I am free to say that the method of legislation suggested by the minister is a better method than the one suggested in the amendment which I moved, at least it is more in harmony with the general character of the Bill,' but in order to afford a proper fireguard it will be necessary for the company to go off its right of way and the board may not feel authorized-unless given specific authority to do so-to order the companies to go off the right of way. A fire-guard was constructed last year conjointly by the North-west government and the railway company, which is a ploughed furrow 300 feet from the centre of the track on either side and eight feet wide. As the board might not think itself empowered to direct the company to go off its right of way, I propose to submit the following amendment :
Provided in respect of fire-guards ordered by the board to be maintained by the company, the company may, subject to any law of a province or the North-west Territories enter upon land not owned by it, and no claim for damages shall be maintained against the company for any act done in compliance with the order of the board ; and provided further that neglect or failure by the company to comply with any such order shall be an offence under the Act punishable, on summary conviction, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000).
It may be that the minister Is not able to say at the present moment whether he can adopt this suggestion, but as the Bill Is to be reprinted and brought before the committee again he might consider it in the meantime.


Mr. OSLER.: My recollection is that for the past year or two the territorial government has been making these fire-guards under an arrangement with the railways whereby the railways paid so much per mile. It would be rather a pity if an agreement of that sort should be interfered with by this Bill.


Thomas Walter Scott: There is an existing arrangement between the North-west government and the company, but the arrangement is not satisfactory to the government, and the government has given notice to the company that the arrangement will terminate at the end of this year.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It might perhaps be possible to modify that arrangement. It seems tome that it would be wise to leave it open, that such an arrangement can be made. It would I think be a satisfactory solution to the aitn-culty.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am quite unable to express any opinion upon the amendment of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) at the present time, it is certainly novel in that it proposes to authorize the taking of land of other people without compensation. The Bill will be reprinted and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) will have an opportunity of asking the committee to consider his amendment.
Mr. DAVIS moved that the committee revert to the consideration of clause 51.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Thomas Osborne Davis: I have an amendment to move to this clause with respect to the granting of charters to the railway. My amendment is as follows :
Parties applying for railway charters shall apply in writing to the board, and their application shall contain full particulars as to the route to be traversed by the road ; also as to powers requested, and all other information in connection with the same. The applicant shall pay to the board such sum of money as the board shall deem sufficient to make an investigation. The board shall send a competent person to investigate and report to the board. Such report shall contain a description of the country through which the road is supposed to run, as to the approximate cost of the road, the other charters granted in said territory, and all other information in connection with the proposition. Said report shall be forwarded to the Minister of Railways who shall have the same printed and placed in the hands of the members of the railway committee when the Bill comes up for consideration.
It is generally agreed that something has to be done in the near future in connection with the granting of railway charters by this House. I think that has been demonstrated during this session. There are only two ways open to us, either to adopt the American system and make the charters as free as air or to adopt some such system as I propose. A party comes with a Bill before the Railway Committee, hangs up a map with a line or two on it, and gives the committee very little information. The members have to take the word of the promoter as to the character of the country through which the road is to run, its approximate cost, and everything else about it. The promoters sometimes ask bonding powers up to $20,000 a mile, and when some member of the committee asks why they wish such large bonding powers, their reply is that the country is rocky, or something of that kind. In fact, there is no information before the committee to enable the members intelligently to discuss the Bill. Under the provision I propose, parties wish-

mg to get a railway charter have to show their bona tides, in the first place, by putting up a sum of money in the hands of the railway commission to pay the cost of an investigation. The railway commission will send out an engineer to investigate whether there is any necessity for the road. If he finds that there is no necessity for it, he will so report. If he finds that there is, he will report upon the character of the country, the approximate cost of the road, whether there is any other charter for that part of the country, and whether the proposed charter is likely to interfere with vested rights. If that were done, and the report were handed to the minister and printed and placed in the hands of members when any application for a charter comes before the Railway Committee, it would enable the members to deal intelligently with the application. It would be a great improvement on the present condition of things. We are told that there is a great deal of charter-mongering going on. This would put a stop to that, because parties applying for charters would have to put up a sum of money with the railway commissioners before they could make an application at all. When parties come to this House and ask for franchises to build railroads all over the country, the government and the members of this House should know exactly what to say to those people. If some one goes to a loan company and makes an application for a loan of a sum of money, the company does not hand out the money without sending its inspector to see what the property on which the loan is to be made iis like. We should he in the same position when an application is made for a railway charter. We should know everything in regard to the character of the country and in regard to the proposed railway. If the minister and the House will accept this amendment, dt will be a big improvement on the old system.


Peter Macdonald: A motion must first be made that liberty be granted for the amendment to be considered.
Mr. DA\ IS. I will leave this motion in the hands of the minister for his consideration, and we can take it up later on.
Motion of Mr. Davis to reconsider section 224 negatived.


Mr. HENDERSON.: As the motion of the hon. member has been made, I think it might as well be considered now. I was just going to say that this looks like a case of Satan reproving sin. If there is an offender in the House along the line of the amendment which the hon. gentleman has moved, it is the hon. gentleman himself.


Thomas Walter Scott: He repents.
HI?NDERSON. I am glad to know kf has repented. I will simply ask that when this matter comes before the committee again, the same provision shall be Mr. DAVIS.
made to apply to all applications for ex-* tensions of time. It seems to me that the hon. member, having exploited the whole i North-west and secured charters north, south, east and west, now wants to cut out everybody else, and be the sole possessor of that great lone land. No doubt he is very wise, but I think this House should guard the interests of others; and when he comes to ask for extensions of time for those numerous charters which he has already obtained, I hope the committee will see that exactly the same information is provided by him with respect to them as is to be provided in the case of new charters.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I rise to a point of order. I want to know if this motion is before the House. It was read by the hon. gentleman who moved it, but was not read from the Chair', and yet we go on and debate it.


Peter Macdonald: That is not the question that is being debated. The hon. gentleman made a motion to reconsider section 224, and, speaking on that motion, he read a proposed amendment; but it was not placed in my hands, and consequently it did not come in.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought he was debating the motion he read, and giving reasons why we should adopt either that or the American system.


Peter Macdonald: He was giving reasons, I understand, why the committee should reconsider section 224.


Andrew B. Ingram: As I understand it, there is nothing before the Chair at this moment.


Peter Macdonald: I declared the amendment lost which the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) proposed, hamely, to return to section 224.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What became of the 'notice of the amendment of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson).


David Henderson: I will attend to that amendment when the time comes up.


Peter Macdonald: A motion
made by an hon. gentleman is not before the committee until it is placed in my hands and read by me. After it is read by me, the ownership is taken out of the hands of the hon. member, and it becomes the property of the committee, and the mover has ho power to withdraw it afterwards except by leave of the committee. Until an amendment is read by me, it is the same as an ordinary piece of paper, whether put in my hands or not.


Andrew B. Ingram: 
Mr. SUTHERLAND (Essex).: I beg to move that the following section be added to section 211 :-
All box freight cars built in Canada, for use on Canadian railways, after the passing of this Act. shall be provided with the following attachments for the security of railway employees, viz :-
(a.) outside ladders, on two of the diagonally opposite ends and sides of each car, projecting below the frame of the car, with one step or rung of the ladder below the frame, the ladders being placed close to the ends and sides to which they are attached ;
(b.) hand grips placed anglewise over the ladders of each box car and so arranged as to assist persons in climbing on the roof by means of the ladder ;
All cars built prior to the passing of this Act shall be fitted with such attachments on or before the 31st of December, 1905 ; provided, that if there should, at any time, be any other improved side attachment which, in the opinion oi the board, is better calculated to promote the safety of the train hands, then the board may require any of such cars not already fitted with the side attachments first mentioned to be fitted with said improved attachment.
Tile MINISTER OP' RAILWAYS AND CANALS. This will dispose of all the sections of the Bill. The understanding is that the Bill as amended is to be reprinted, and the committee will be asked to sit again to complete its work. I cannot say that it is proposed to revise the sections again, but if anything has escaped attention, we will be prepared to give reasonable opportunity to bring the matter up, I would not encourage the idea of extensive revision, and I hope that hon. members will not think it necessary, for we know how impossible it is to reach finality in legislation of this kind. Before asking the committee to close its labours for the present, I wish personally to convey to hon. members on both sides my appreciation of the manner in which
they have endeavoured to assist me in the treatment of this Bill in committee. I have no reason to complain of the manner in which the various clauses have been criticised. I think there has been a fair and honest disposition on the part of hon. gentlemen on both sides to give us the benefit of their best judgment on the Bill and make it as perfect as possible. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Indians-Ontario and Quebec-further amount required for relief and medical attendance, *2,500.
['There was such a petition as my hon. friend refers to, which was sent to our agent there. He made an explanation which the deputy considered as satisfactory. If the hon. gentleman requires any further investigation, I will have it done.\nSome resolutions reported.']
Edmund Boyd Osler: About a month ago a gentleman came here from England, who was connected, I think, with the oldest society in existence having relations to the Indians on this North American continent, a society that was chartered in Cromwell's time. I was surprised to find how deep an interest they took in the Indians of this country. That gentleman came to Ottawa and called on the department, and was delighted with the reception he received. He came to Toronto with me, and I introduced him to Mr. Boyle and others interested in Indian matters. He went to Brantford and stayed there a week, studying the condition of the Indians on the Brantford reserve. He wrote me a note regretting that be was not able to come here on his return home after his visit, but saying that he was exceedingly satisfied and very much pleased with the condition of the Indians and with the care they received. But there was one point to which he took objection, and that is a point I brought up here two or three years ago at the request of a gentleman who takes great interest in them, Mr. Hamilton, of Toronto. This gentleman from England said he found on the reserve that the medical man lived miles away, that the medical man appointed a substitute who was also away from the reserve, and the substitute appointed a substitute for himself, and this latter was the only man living on the reserve to whom the Indians could go in case of sickness. He thought that was a very serious matter, and constituted a grave defect in the administration of Indian affairs, as regards that particular reserve.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I remember that the hon. gentleman brought this matter to my attention. I am not able at present to say that I have a very distinct recollection of the details which he gave me. But I can tell him now that I will give the matter immediate attention.


Edmund Boyd Osler: This gentleman who came here to visit the Indians says that the In-

dians felt keenly that they were being neglected. With this exception, he expressed the very highest approval of the administration so far as he observed it. The chief medical man, X understand, is Dr. Secord. Would the minister say what salary he gets, and what salary is paid to his deputies ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The salary paid Dr. Secord is $2,800. He arranges for his assistants himself, and pays them out of his own salary.
Mr. OSLER, Surely that is a very unwise method. If he appoints his own assistants it may be taken for granted that they are not highly paid men. As the chief medical officer does not live on the reserve but lives twelve miles away, it is necessary that there should be an assistant. I do not think it is right that the doctor should have the appointment of his assistant when he has to pay him out of his own salary.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The difficulty mentioned by my bon. friend is not one that can be arranged very easily. It is difficult to get a medical man of good standing and ability to take up Indian work, and live upon the reserve and devote himself to it. The arrangement is the result of the experience of the department in past years, but I admit it is open to objection. I can promise the hon. member that I will see if a better arrangement can be made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the assistant not live upon the reserve ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Under the arrangement be is required to live upon the reserve.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But I understand that he does not live on the reserve. I hold that a medical man twelve miles away cannot take proper care of the Indians in case of sickness, and the case is still worse when the assistant is away. This is not a thing that can be farmed out with good results, because the party who hires the assistant has in all probability a very large rake-off. Therefore, the assistant will do his work in a perfunctory manner, and as little of it as possible.


Haughton Lennox: The minister forgot to tell us whether these assistants are duly qualified practitioners.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The assistant is a qualified practitioner.


Haughton Lennox: Does the hon. minister think it is acting with prudence as regards these people to leave it in such a position that the medical officer draws a salary of $2,800 a year ? He farms it out to a regular practitioner who does not permanently reside upon the reserve and that gentleman has the right to send students to look after Mr. OSLER.
the Indians and take his place. It comes down to this that we are paying $2,800 a year, probably not too much for this service, which in the end is performed by students.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The hon. gentleman is under a misapprehension in regard to the payment of the salary. The payment is made out of the Indian fund and with the consent of the band. The arrangement is approved by the band that pays the money. The department has not received any complaints from the Indians. Notwithstanding that, I quite admit that it is an arrangement that requires to be looked into and fully considered.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I spoke from the statement that this gentleman made to me after he had been nearly a week on the reserve. The complaints came directly from the Indians to him. This gentleman, Mr. Wigram, was nearly a week on the reserve observing for himself. He was exceedingly pleased with everything in connection with the baud and the one complaint of the Indians was that they were neglected in their medical attendance. He found that the doctor who is in charge'does not live upon the reserve. His deputy was away for an indefinite period and his deputy had appointed a deputy to act for him while he was away. That deputy may have been a student, and if he was a student he probably would be appointed without pay. While it is quite true that Dr. Secord draws money that may come from the Indian fund, I do not think , that is a reason why the money should not be properly administered. I am glad that the hon. minister says that he will take the matter up. I think he will find that the case is as I have stated, and that the condition of the medical service on the reserve is not satisfactory.


Haughton Lennox: I do not want the hon. minister to understand me as complaining about the amount. I merely suggested that the person who is performing the service is not probably receiving the money, and therefore, the service would not be performed so well. Even if the government were directly paying the money, if more money were required I would not have any complaint to make at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would regard the plan as a very bad one for more reasons than one. The first reason is that it is very improper for a medical man to farm out work of that kind, and money spent in that way is not wisely spent. The second is that the poor Indian is paying out of this fund a consideration for proper medical attendance which he is not getting. It is said that the assistant resides on the reserve but the complaint of the Indians was that the assistant was away for several weeks and that he sent a substitute in his place. Who is the substitute ? He is likely to be a student

of one or two years standing, who takes this opportunity of acquiring some knowledge of practice, because lie lias no legal right to practice except by going to see a patient under some medical man and tliat medical man could not charge for that service if the patient disputed the bill. But he is not in the proper sense a practitioner and the Indian is obliged to depend upon the service of a student, who perhaps has no proper knowledge of his profession at all. Now, the original practitioner receives a large amount of money out of the Indian fund. He gets $2,800 a year, when in reality the Indian may not have $100 worth of service from the medical branch, because the service of a student of one or two years standing would not be regarded amongst civilized and intelligent people in any portion of this country as a proper practice of the profession, nor would it be regarded as a fulfilment of a contract to provide medical attendance on a railway or a public work.


Mr. BENNETT.: Who is the agent at the St. Peters' reserve in Manitoba ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
The Rev. John Semmens.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is his age ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
I have not the record just at hand, but he is a man of fifty-two or fifty-three.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does he live on the reserve, or how far away from it ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
His instructions are that he has to live on the reserve. I believe he does so.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is there a general controller or commissioner who has supervision of the agents like this gentleman, Mr. Bell, in that district ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
The general inspector of the district is Mr. S. .1. Jackson, of Stonewall.


William Humphrey Bennett: How old is he ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: About fifty-five.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think that we have properly finished the subject. Since it has been brought to the attention of the hon. minister is he not prepared to say that he will discontinue a system so unjust and improper, because, it seems to me as a medical man, that it is a very great injustice to the Indians.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The question of medical attendance upon Indians is always a difficult question. You never can satisfy Indians that they are being properly attended to medically. The more medical attendance that is provided the more they want. Their demands grow in
proportion to the supply, and it is always a very difficult matter to satisfy Indians upon that particular question. As hon. gentlemen can see the tendency is towards growth in the expenditure for medical attendance. It is difficult to get a good practitioner to reside on the reserve and devote himself to it. I am not satisfied that the arrangement upon the reserve is not a fairly good one ; at the same time I am quite satisfied after all that has been said that this is a subject for careful consideration.
I am satisfied that there is an objection to the system of allowing a physician to employ his own agent and to fix the remuneration. I appreciate fully the force of what hon. gentlemen have said and I will look into the matter and see if any improvement can be made.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Does the hon. minister think that if he finds this case as I have stated it he might give a promise that the pay of the physician shall be made through the government and not. through the head man who lives twelve or fifteen miles away from the reserve ? You can never have a system satisfactory to the Indians until that is done. There is no consideration required on that point at all.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend will hardly ask me to make a positive promise that a change will be inade until I know it can be carried out.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Three years ago the complaint was made and the minister promised that he would look into it. To-night that complaint is made stronger than ever. It is so manifest that the system is wrong that it requires no considration at all.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I went over the whole matter very carefully with the medical gentleman at the time and no complaint has been made since. I was under the impression that everything was satisfactory.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Such a system could not be satisfactory.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Indians are paying sufficient money to have a qualified medical man to attend them. Two thousand eight hundred dollars a year is a very good salary for that kind of practice. The system of farming out a practice is bad, because the person who is employed usually gets a small salary and is liable to do his work in a perfunctory manner. No medical man should be allowed to attend the Indians unless he is duly certified to practice in any *part of the country. The medical man should be a lawfully qualified practitioner and not a student who perhaps may have little knowledge of his profession. I admit that it is the experience of medical men that it is hard to please the Indians and 'that sometimes they think they are sick when they are not sick at all, but an in-

telligent practitioner can easily discover that and should tell the Indian that he is hot sick if such be the case. I am told that they are sometimes put off with a dose of salts, which if it does not do them any good 'will not do them any harm, but even that is 'not a good system. A medical man who thoroughly knows his profession ought to have dignity and confidence enough in himself to tell the Indian that he does not require medicine if such be the case. If you allow such a system to continue on the Indian reserves you are liable to get quacks or 'charlatans when the Indians are paying enough money to get a qualified practitioner. The minister must see that the system is bad and he should at once make a change.


Peter Macdonald: Shall the item be adopted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No. If the minister does hot give us an answer we must insist on knowing what he is going to do before the item is passed. The minister might as well understand early as late that we will not be treated as if we had no rights in this House.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The hon. gentleman knows that he cannot expect me to give a positive promise now.
1 can tell him that I will recommend such a change as will seem to me to be desirable in the line of a complete and satisfactory medical attendance. There are a great 'many Indian reserves in Canada and I cannot be expected to have intimate knowledge of the details of what is going on in each reserve. The matter was gone into carefully some years ago and inasmuch as the Inspector of the Indian agencies has not called my attention to any complaints since that time, it was reasonable to expect that the matters, were then placed on a satisfactory basis. I am informed that the department has no reason to suppose that the medical service has been inefficient. There was an outbreak of small-pox in that reserve last year and I am informed that it was handled with great skill and was stamped out in a very short time. I will look into the matter carefully and I will make the best arrangement I can.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it not reasonable to expect that the minister will say that the medical attendants on these reserves shall be properly qualified practitioners. There is no family in this country who is paying for a doctor and who would be treated by physicians who are not duly qualified. The minister ought at least to be prepared to say that he will supply properly qualified physicians to these Indians. As to whether he should live on the reserve or off it, it 'seems to me that it does not require very great intelligence to discern how difficult it would be for a medical man living twelve miles from the reserve to do Justice to the Indians. It would put the Indians to a 'great deal of inconvenience in eases of em-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: ergency, or at certain seasons of the year when the roads are bad; whereas a medical man living on the reserve would be available at an hour's notice. I think it is not too much to ask the hon. gentleman to see that, as the Indian fund provides sufficient to give the Indians a properly qualified practitioner, they should have one.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: l.1 s?ve ^le promise the hon. gentleman asks, it might involve the prohibition of medical students going on the reserve at all to assist in attending to the Indians, and I do not know that that would be a good thing. I may say to my hon. friend that the medical practitioner on the reserve has to be appointed with the consent of the council of the band, which is composed of men of a considerable degree of intelligence, who know what should be done in a case of that kind. To make the change proposed might involve bringing some of the Indians down here to consult with them. I would rather put myself in the position of not making the promise than to make it, and not be able to carry it out. All I can say is that I will do the best I can, both for the Indians and with the fund.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would submit to the hon. minister this question in his own case; if he were sending for a medical man to whom he was paying a good fee for his services, and some student who might not have studied for two years were sent to him, would he be satisfied to pay for the services of that student as much as he would for the services of a well qualified medical man? The same rule ought to apply to the Indians who are paying out of their fund the full compensation for the attendance of a well qualified medical man. We a,re told that even the assistant was not on the reserve for a week, but sent another to do his work, and that :is what we complain of. So far as we know, there is no properly qualified medical man to do the work. If the work must be farmed out, it should at least be given to a professional man who understands his business, because full compensation is being paid for the attendance of such a man.


John Dowsley Reid: Is this man allowed also to attend to other practice in Brantford ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: Does not the hon. minister think that is unfair to the other practitioners in the city of Brantford ? Does he not think that it is a reasonable request that this man, who is paid $2,800 a year for attending the Indians, should not be allowed to interfere with the practice of the other physicians in the city of Brantford ? If this were done, this man would be able to give to the Indians the properl attendance they require. Will the minister*

promise that he will see that this physician shall not be permitted to engage in other practice than among the Indians ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am afraid I cannot promise that. As to the effect on the other physicians in the city of Brantford, all I can say is that I have never looked at the matter from that standpoint. I have been administering the affairs of the department for the benefit of the Indians. I do not know that it is a serious matter to the other physicians in the city of Brantford that he gets a salary. I have never heard a complaint raised on their behalf until my hon. friend has raised it to-night. I have discussed this subject quite frequently with my hon. friend from South Brant (Mr. Heyd), who I am glad to see here, and who is perhaps more familiar with the reserve than any one else, and I have never heard that point raised in my conversations with him. In nine cases out of ten, the Indian physicians will find that the work they do for the Indians is a small part of their practice. In some places it is a small part, and in other places a large part; but I doubt very much if it is practicable to carry out the principle which the hon. gentleman suggests.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not mean that it should apply to all the physicians attending Indians. In cases where the salary is very small, it would hardly be expected; but in a case like this, where the medical man is receiving a salary of $2,800 a year, I think the minister might fairly apply the principle; because there is no doubt that this man has a decided advantage over the other physicians practicing in Brantford. When was he appointed to this position ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The exact date is not to hand at present, but it was about six years ago.


John Dowsley Reid: Was he appointed at the same salary, or has it been increased since ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The same salary.


John Dowsley Reid: In this case the hon. minister is deviating from another principle that was adopted by hon. gentlemen opposite not only when in opposition, but since the present government came into power. I know that when hon. gentlemen opposite were in opposition, they objected to any physician practicing who held a government appointment. Let me cite the instance of the physicians in the Kingston penitentiary. When that appointment was given to Dr. Phelan, he had to give up his practice, and although he was one of the leading physicians in Kingston he accepted a position at $1,800 a year, and gave up his other practice. Why, therefore, is this physician in Brantford allowed to practice in opposition to the other physicians in that
town ? I ask that he be put into the same position as other physicians who have been given government appointments, and be compelled to give up his other practice.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I was not present when this discussion began and do not know just what has been said, but I can plead a legitimate excuse because I was attending the redistribution committee, giving some testimony with regard to a matter of considerable importance to myself. As I have personal knowledge of the facts, I would ask permission of the House to explain this matter. I can do so all the more strenuously because I believe that the present conditions, under which our Indian friends are supplied with doctors, are the best that can be devised. I have no personal interest at stake, and am simply influenced by my regard for the welfare of the Indians. There is one objection to having the Indian physician a resident on the reserve. You cannot get a first-class man to go there with his family, because there is no social intercourse for his wife and no suitable schools for his children. For these reasons a first-class man will not go and live there for the salary, although it appears high to some hon. gentlemen opposite. You must have a married man to begin with. That is absolutely necessary on the reserve. In order that these four thousand Indians should be provided with proper medical attendance, you must have a first-class man, a married man, who is conscientious and whose moral character is beyond reproach. In order that these people should be properly treated, that doctor must have a qualified assistant, who will look after the ordinary cases of disease while he attends to the most serious ones. The present physician, Dr. Secord, has a qualified assistant, who is also a married man and who lives on the reserve constantly and is, therefore, in close touch with the people.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is his name ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: He is a son of the gentleman who represents Haldimand in the local legislature. His name is Holmes. He is a qualified doctor and is constantly on the reserve. He was a student who had just passed and was about qualifying for his degree, when he was given this position by Dr. Secord. There is, therefore, not much left out of his government salary, after Dr. Secord pays this young man who is his assistant. The reserve covers some sixty-four square miles, and the physician's practice requires some rough driving, which an ordinary physician has not the slightest conception of. I do not think that the Indians could have a better doctor than Dr. Secord. All the serious cases he looks after himself personally, and is recognized as eminently well qualified to do so, and he has a qualified man to look after the others. Dr. Secord drives to the reserve, some four or five times a week, stays there

over night, and looks after the more serious cases, while his assistant, who is a qualified physician, looks after the others. I do not know how the Indians could be better served. I can testify to the conscientious way in which the physicians discharge their duty. If you were to limit Dr. Secord to his practice on the reserve, he would not take the position nor would any other physician of his standing, because there would not be enough money in it left, after paying for the three horses which he requires in order to attend properly to the work. Our Indians are being better served by their physicians to-day than they were ever before. Their hygienic condition is being constantly improved under the wise supervision ' of Dr. Secord and bis assistant, and any charges made against him have been simply evolved out of political consideration.


William Humphrey Bennett: He is quite a politician.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: He was until he was appointed, but since then he does not meddle with politics ; and I can say, to the credit of all the civil servants in Brantford, that they are absolutely loyal to the men who pay them, and leave politics alone. The best proof of that is the fact that when this government assumed office, the civil servants were all Conservatives in the town of Brantford, and not one of them has been removed.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman states that the reason why it was necessary to employ Dr. Secord is because it required an upright and honourable man to fill the position, and it was impossible to get a man of that kind to live on the reserve.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I did not say that.
Mr-. REID (Grenville). The hon. gentleman said it would be impossible to get a first-class practitioner and an upright, honourable man to live on the reserve. I think that that is a very unfair reflection on Dr. Holmes, who is living on the reserve and who is a married man. Surely it is hardly fair that the hon. gentleman should thus reflect on the character of Dr. Holmes, who is living there with his family. If this Dr. Holmes is qualified to practice on the reserve, and if he be an upright and honourable man and is willing to live on the reserve, he should get the salary for doing the work; and if so, I am sure he would not try to do any outside practice.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: 
John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) says the physicians in Brantford do not object to this arrangement. He knows very well that if he recommended Dr. Secord for the position, as no doubt he did, it would be useless for any physician in Brantford to object to Dr. Secord, because his objection would be taken no notice of. The hon. minister states that it is impossible to get a qualified practitioner to live among the Indians and attend to them. And now the hon. member for South Brant tells us that there is a qualified practitioner living among the Indians and attending to them, and doing the work well. This gentleman is doing all the work, but he has to give up a certain amount of his salary to Dr. Secord, for he knows that if he did not do so he could not hold the position. So long as Dr. Secord .wishes to take the bonus, the other man must pay it and say nothing, or he will lose the position. The other physicians of Brantford, whether Liberals or Conservatives, know that it would be useless to enter any protest. It is the duty of the hon. member for South Brant to protect the other physicians in Brantford instead of trying to give this one man a bonus by farming-out this position. Where the government pay a sufficient salary for the physician to do this work, that salary should go to the man who is doing the work, and another physician should not take a bonus from the man who actually does the work. It is quite true that there might be serious cases in which a consultation would be required. In that case, the doctor on the reserve could call in Dr. Secord or any other person he wished, and pay him a fee out of his salary. But I think it is most unfair that the man who is doing the work should only receive a small portion of the salary. I am not reflecting on Dr. Secord ; I do not know that gentleman at all. I have no doubt that he is the best physician in Brantford. But what I object to is his being allowed to hold this position and farming it out in this way, thus getting a bonus to compete against other doctors in his city. The gov-

eminent themselves have set a precedent in the case of Dr. Phelan, who was appointed physician to the Kingston penitentiary. He is not allowed to practice. Why then, should this physician be allowed to practice outside of the position he has. I do not think it is unfair to ask that the position should be given to some one, Dr. Secord or any other, I have no objection to Dr. Secord-with the understanding that he is to live on the reserve as Dr. Holmes does, and attend to the Indians.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: It is a curious thing that the one who lives in Brantford, knows the doctors In the city, knows the circumstances of the ease, knows exactly the political effect upon himself if he offends the doctors of that city, or if he does not do the best thing in the interest of the citizens and the Indians, is to be instructed by a gentleman who lives two hundred miles away, who knows nothing of the conditions, and represents no grievance. If the doctors do hot like the arrangement I am pretty sure to hear of it; if the Indians do not like it, they will not keep that fact to themselves; and if the gentleman on the reserve does not like it I am sure he will very soon tell me so. But there is no dissatisfaction. The man on the reserve is getting the wages to be given him by Dr. Secord, which is a large portion of the salary. If lie got the appointment he would have to employ some one to relieve him of a certain portion of the labour. The Indians have the advice and constant supervision of one of the ablest and most experienced physicians in Brantford, the constant attendance of Dr. Holmes, the attendance at times of students and a great deal of medicine, all for $2,800.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The hon. member for South Brant was not present when I brought this matter up. I explained that a gentleman of high position in England, Mr. Wigram, who is much interested in Indian affairs, came with a letter to me. I tried to find the hon. member for South Brant here, as I told Mr. Wigram that that hon. gentleman would put him on the track of getting the information he wanted. Mr. Wigram went to Brantford and spent some days on the reserve. One of his objects was to find out whether the funds of the Indians were being wasted or not. He afterwards Wrote me from New York, expressing regret that he could not come back this way and telling me that he was highly pleased with everything he saw on the reserve except one point which he thought ought to be remedied. He found that the doctor lived miles away, that the doctor appointed a substitute, but that substitute was not then on the reserve and was away for an indefinite period, and had in turn appointed a substitute. This was one thing that caused dissatisfaction among the Indians. And it appears to me quite clear that this is a thing that ought to be remedied. I realize that it might be difficult to get the con-1 199
suiting physician to live upon the reserve. But I do contend that the pay of the man who lives upon the reserve should be made direct from the Indian Department and not from a local doctor. The natural tendency of a doctor in such a case would be to get the service done as cheaply as possible. The Minister of the Interior said it was impossible to get a qualified man to live on the reserve. I agreed with him that it was a difficult thing. But the member for Brantford (Mr. Heyd) says there is a most respectable and well qualified man living on the reserve with his family. That does away with the only answer the minister could give.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Dr. Holmes is a young physician who has not had the necessary experience to take supervision over a large reserve like that. I do not know what he gets. He gets the house he lives in, and I think he gets $1,200 or 1,500 a year. I do not think there is more than $1,000 left for Dr. Secord.


John Dowsley Reid: Will the minister' say that he will give Dr. Holmes the position, or else ask Dr. Secord to live on the reserve ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: In the first place I did not say that there was not a qualified practitioner on the reserve. I said that the assistant who lived on the reserve was a qualified practitioner. I have stated also at the beginning of the discussion, that it was difficult to get a qualified man to live on the reserve, and my hon. friend from Brantford has explained why, and he has fuller knowledge of the matter than I have. I am not prepared to say that I will make any change in the arrangement in that respect, but I will look into the matter and see if any improvement can be made.


John Dowsley Reid: Who was the physician previous to Dr. Secord ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Dr. Langrel was appointed by the late government. He discharged the duties for a good many years, until finally he got tired and resigned and went to Hamilton to live. He left the reserve in charge of his two sons, young men who had not had much experience. The present government appointed Dr. Secord, who was appointed before I entered the House.


John Dowsley Reid: Were these two young men qualified practitioners when they were on the reserve ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: They had no regular status there, they were simply discharging the work of their father who had left the reserve. Dr. Secord employed several gentlemen to assist him until finally he got Dr. Holmes, who has had much experience, who is respectable and qualified, and in a few years will be able to take charge of the
4,000	people, when he also will have to em-

ploy an assistant. By that time very likely Dr. Secord will have resigned the job, and I shall be happy to recommend Dr. Holmes.


John Dowsley Reid: I see in addition to Dr. Second's salary that he gets $2,055 for extras.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: No, $300 for special medicine. He supplies all the drugs for the whole of that reserve. When they want castor oil to grease their wagons they generally go to the doctor and get it. These Indians want expensive drugs, they want quinine. The government allows $300 for medical supplies, and they cost about $600.


William Humphrey Bennett: On the one side there seems to be a complaint from the Indians as voiced through the gentleman referred to by the hon. gentleman from West Toronto.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: The Indians are not complaining. _


William Humphrey Bennett: But the hon. member from West Toronto gave the testimony of a gentleman saying they were complaining.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: You must bear in mind the conditions under which he visited the reserve and the short time he was there. At present there is very little sickness on the reserve, as there seldom is in the summer time.


William Humphrey Bennett: The Indians complain that Dr. Secord, who receives a large salary, farms out the work to another gentleman, to Dr. Holmes, but the trouble does not end there, because Dr. Holmes won't stay on the reserve, and he farms out the work to another gentleman, who, when he gets weary, goes over to Brantford, and the consequence is that the Indians are left without any physician. Now on referring to the Auditor General's Beport, I find that this Dr. L. Secord, when he does not want to go down to the reserve to attend to the duties for which he is paid $2,800, he sends down Dr. E. R. Secord, his partner, I suppose.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: That is his son who had just graduated from McGill College.


William Humphrey Bennett: And living at home with his father.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: And who took five first class scholarships. He was employed by the Indian Department to go down and stamp out a small-pox epidemic on the reserve. The city of Brantford employed him to do the same thing in Brantford. As Dr. Secord could not expose himself to the contagion of small-pox and visit the rest of the Indians he hired his son to do that, and he stamped out the small-pox on the reserve in about four weeks.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I thought the objection that had been made by the hon. gentleman to the other doctor was" that he was a young man and now he is backing up the employment of a young man without experience.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: 


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Could you expect the doctor to expose himself to small-pox and then look after the other Indians on the reserve ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: The hon. gentleman objected that Dr. Second's substitute was a young man living on the reserve and that he had no experience.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Dr. Secord could not attend to the small-pox patients and look after the other Indians as well.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am not objecting- to that. This is a question of experience. An epidemic of. small-pox is a very serious thing, but while the hon. gentleman says that it is wise and defensible to send a man just fresh from McGill who has taken half a dozen medals and scholarships and who is certainly a gentleman of not much experience to stamp out an epidemic of small-pox he objects to the other young man because of the lack of experience.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: The best evidence of his ability is that he cured all the people of small-pox and stamped the disease out of the reserve.


John Dowsley Reid: Did he do that in four weeks ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: In about four weeks. There were about twenty Indians ill with smallpox, they were all isolated and had to be taken care of in tents, they were nil cured and the small-pox was stamped out of the reserve. It is more difficult to treat Indians in cases of this kind than whites, because the Indians are less careful. .


William Humphrey Bennett: I think it is rather bard on the funds of this Indian tribe that they should be encroached upon by the rapacity of this Secord family. First, there is Dr. Secord, sr., with $2,800 a year and $300 extra. He does not like to go down to the reserve because there is a contagious disease there, and so he farms it out to Dr. Secord, jr., and the young man picks up no less a sum than $810 for his services. I suppose he was at home enjoying a holiday. It turned out at the expense of the Indians to be a very profitable one to him. But, it also turned out that they had to have another gentleman to assist him and Dr. Weir is called in. He is paid $75. Then Dr. Bryans is called in from Toronto, and he is paid $20. Young Dr. Secord gets $85 to pay his board on the reserve. Then he travels back and forward between the reserve and the city of Brantford where he has another job on hand, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) tells us, and he is allowed $30.50 for livery hire. Then, there is travel of agent and physician, $39.15; livery hire for Dr. Weir, $21; interpreter for physician, $29; horse-hire and livery, $51.25, and there are other sums. It does seem a farce. Herd is a gentleman paid $2,800 to act as physician to the reserve, and as these men have no votes and can only remonstrate with

the department, what do the department do ? They simply graft the Secord family and the rest of these Grit physicians, as I suppose they are all friends of the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd)

*


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Not one of them.


William Humphrey Bennett: The Secords not ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: Dr. Secord was known as a cyclone in western Ontario politics for years. He was as well known, though I may not say in the same manner, as Cap. Sullivan and hon. gentlemen know how well known Cap. Sullivan is. Of course, Dr. Secord is not in the same category as Cap. Sullivan.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Have you any authority for making any reflections upon Dr. Secord's character ? I think you have a good cheek to stand up and make such an attack upon a decent man.


William Humphrey Bennett: I say that he was not in the same category as Cap. Sullivan.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Why connect him with Cap. Sullivan at all ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I say that he was a prominent politican in western Ontario.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: You used the words ' Cap. Sullivan ' in the sense of a reflection upon Dr. Secord.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman need not be so captious about Cap. Sullivan. The hon. gentleman slept under the same roof as Cap. Sullivan, and was cheek by jowl with him. I saw them all in western Ontario myself and with a minister too. Do not go back on Cap. Sullivan now. The hon. gentleman was a chum of Cap. Sullivan as were some of the ministers. Now, let us get back to the question that we have been discussing. A gentleman from England goes over the reserve. The Indians point with pride to their farms and this gentleman admires them. Everything is satisfactory except the case of the physician. No wonder there is dissatisfaction. As soon as a case of illness exists there what happens ? The son is sent down.


Mr. GALLIHER.: Would the hou. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) allow me to ask him a question ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Certainly, forty.


William Alfred Galliher: Would you consider that it was wise or prudent on the part of the department, or of Dr. Secord himself, when he was attending other patients on the reserve that were not affected by small-pox, to go and attend small-pox patients ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I have a ready-answer to that.


William Alfred Galliher: Answer that question.


William Humphrey Bennett: Dr. Secord, jr., was
living with his father in the city of Brant-199i
ford. He went back and forward between the city and the reserve every day and met his father at the table. Was there no danger of contagion in that ?


William Alfred Galliher: The hon. member is merely assuming that ? He is not stating the facts at all. He is drawing upon his imagination just as the hon. member for East Grey drew upon his imagination when he said that the Dr. who was there as the substitute for Dr. Holmes, he had reason to suppose was not a duly qualified medical practitioner. I say that it is just as reasonable to suppose that the substitute for Dr. Holmes who went there was a duly qualified medical practitioner although probably a young man. If the hon. gentleman went to a court of law upon a supposititious case and attempted to press the case before the judge he would be very quickly told to stop, to get down to facts and to speak of what he knew or of what his witnesses knew in regard to the case. There is no use of any hon. gentleman in this House undertaking to criticise a matter when he is basing his criticism upon assumption and not upon facts. If hon. gentlemen are going to indulge in criticism of that sort their criticism will have no weight with the hon. Minister of the Interior or with the members of the government or with people at large. They must base their criticism upon facts and not upon supposition.
_ Mr. BENNETT. I am sure the hon. minister will be obliged to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Galliher) for obstructing his estimates. We can stay here as long as hon. gentlemen can. If the hon. gentleman will persist in obstructing, I suppose we will be here until October. I am not sure that this Dr. Secord did return to his father's house, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) says that he was a young man who had just returned from college and he either returned to his father's house or this is a fraudulent livery Bill. I do not think it is. I do not assume for a moment that it is. Does not the hon. gentleman think that if he were one of these noble braves with a Dr. paid $2,800 a year, and having one assistant, with that assistant being away and having to bring down these two gentlemen from Brantford and a third from Toronto and if at the same time he had to pay the piper to the extent of the whole bill he would come to the conclusion that it was high time that this physician who was paid to attend to the cases on the reserve did attend to them ? It is only fair that these remonstrances of these Indians should be listened to.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: The Indians did not remonstrate ; they are satisfied. It was the Indian agent that was appointed by the late government who did this in the interest of the Indians, and the Indians are satisfied and I do not see why you should whine about it.


William Humphrey Bennett: I hope the minister will at least promise that he will see that this

doctor attends to the duties of his office if another outbreak should occur.


Thomas Walter Scott: I have no acquaintance with Dr. Seeord, of Brantford, but I have heard with considerable regret the sneering manner in which my kon. friend (Mr. Bennett) spoke about what he termed the rapacious Seeord family. While I do not know Dr. Seeord, I was well acquainted for years with a very estimable brother of his, who was one of the pioneers of Regina, a very capable barrister, who was for a number of years a member of the North-west Territories legislature and one of the chief props of my honoured predecessor in the representation of West Assiniboia. I repeat that it is with extreme regret that I heard the member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) making sneering remarks about the Seeord family. The member of the family whom I knew was a most respected and estimable gentleman.


William Humphrey Bennett: I care very little about what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) may think of what I said, and so his sympathy is lost on me.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: There is this in it. If a gentleman who occupies a seat in this House attacks the private character of men who have no chance to defend themselves, that member must expect not to have the respect of his fellow-members. If I choose to shield myself behind my position as a member to asperse the character of my neighbours, I should not feel very proud of myself.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Hear, hear.-


Charles Bernhard Heyd: What has been said on the other side of the House is the result of an absolute want of knowledge of the facts of the case. The character of Dr. Seeord and his family has been aspersed by men who know nothing about him.


William Humphrey Bennett: I said nothing about Dr. Seeord, but I said that the Indians were dissatisfied. I said that Dr. Seeord was a most active politician, and the member for Brantford and the Minister of Customs will not deny that.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: He was mayor of the city of Brantford.


William Humphrey Bennett: He was a very prominent politician.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: A most respected gentleman.


William Humphrey Bennett: I did not asperse Dr. Second's character except it be an aspersion on his character to say that he is a prominent Liberal.


Thomas Walter Scott: This ' rapacious Seeord family ! '


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, when he gets $2,800 a year and when he did not give a


William Humphrey Bennett: little patronage to some other Liberal doctor in his city but gave it to his own son, It shows that there was at least a good greed about it.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I havei heard nothing said which would prove to my satisfaction that Dr. Second has not performed his duties properly. It is true that a complaint was made to a medical gentleman who visited the reserve, and when that' complaint was called to my attention by a respected member of the House, I at once said that I would have it looked into. I do not for a moment admit that that complaint indicates that there is any defect in the medical attendance on the reserve. I know something about Indians, and I can say that it is probable that if a visit were made to any reserve under such circumstances, it is likely that complaints would be made which might not on investigation be well founded. I will not admit that Dr. Seeord was in any respect neglectful of his duties. I simply say that I will investigate the complaint and see if there is any improvement to make. For some years I have had to administer matters relating to quarantine, and the result of my experience leads me to be very greatly surprised at the fact that upon this reserve, with an outbreak of thirty-three cases of small-pox, the entire expense of coping with it was only $4,600, in addition to the ordinary medical expense. Any person who has experience will say that this was a phenomenally low charge for handling such an outbreak. My hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) and other members who have had experience in matters of tnis kind, will agree with me in that statement. Furthermore, the men in charge of this matter are perfectly competent. Mr. Cameron, the Indian agent has experience since his appointment in 1891, and he is one of the best and most competent and reliable agents in the service. Mr. Cameron had entire charge of what was done there for the department. It was his business to see that no unnecessary expenditure was incurred. Let me tell my hon. friends that upon this reserve there is a board of health, composed of very intelligent members of the Indian tribe ; there is also an Indian council, and they supervise, along with our officers, the work of this quarantine and the payment of the accounts by the government. No complaint has reached the department in regard to the amounts paid. Mr. Cameron, if it amounts to anything, is not a politician of the government, but a man appointed by our predecessors. We have him, we have the medical superintendent, we have the Indian board of health, we have the Indian council, and not one of these has made a complaint. My hon. friends may rest easy that in that respect' their anxiety as to Indian funds are not well founded.


Hr. COCHRANE.: It Is a new doctrine to me that we are to be criticised because we see fit to challenge the estimates of any minister in this House. What are the facts of the case ? I could not help admiring how sincere our hon. friend from South Brant (Mr. Heyd) was. He was so sincere, and he was so sincere. It put me in mind of what I used to hear, that we always had suspicion of people who protested so much.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Louder.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Well, just possess your soul in patience. My voice is my own, and I will use it as I like.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) It is very squeaky.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: And if the hon. gentleman does not want to hear, there is a door, and he can walk out. The facts of the case are these. The Indian fund was used to pay a physician. He is eminent, I daresay, and he got $2,800 to attend to the medical wants of that tribe of Indians. We had to have an old experienced man, because a young man. Dr. Holmes, was not competent. I think Dr. Holmes should have that money. He has passed his medical examination, he is married and is living on the reserve. I repudiate the idea that a man requires to be an old fogey to be a qualified medical man. In my part of the country it is the young men who are generally the up-to-date clever men, while the old fogeys are not up-to-date. Dr. Holmes is living on the reserve, and is attending to the Indians as well as he can. When a critical case arose he was sent down and it cost $800 more, as 1 understand, in consequence. And yet my hon. friend from South Brant says that our friends who are living 200 miles away should not say anything about it. But we never entered a protest when the hon. gentleman from British Columbia, who lives
3,000	miles away, came to the hon. gentleman's relief. He was then as mild and meek as a sucking baby. What more do we want than we find in the records of the Auditor General's Report ? When there was a serious case on the reserve, and an old experienced man was wanted to attend to it, a young man just fresh from college was sent to attend to the case, and the hon. gentleman said, we are satisfied. If we were in control of the government and were doing such a job. would he have been satisfied ? He would have said it was bribery and corruption. You know deep down in your hearts that you have gone back on everything you advocated in opposition. I want the Minister of Customs to mention one principle that he supported when in opposition that he has not violated.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I will not take up the time of the committee in recounting all the principles that we have kept. That would take too long.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: You could do it in five minutes.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It is well to have criticisms of these accounts ; we do not object to that But perhaps the criticisms of lion, gentlemen opposite are not so much required in this instance as they will be when we come to items involving the expenditure of the people's money by this government. These accounts have been paid out of the Indians' money.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Therefore you would let people steal it.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: And they have passed an audit, quite as intelligent an audit as that which is being bestowed upon it here, judging from the remarks of some of the gentlemen. This account came before the council of the Six Nation Indians. It is their money, and they are particular how their money shall be expended. They are the ones who made the request and who pay the accounts. When an account comes before them, they scrutinize it. That was done in this case. They saw that the account was right, and they sent it to the government and asked that it be paid. And after all that has been done, some hon. gentlemen in this House feel it incumbent upon them to rise and criticise this account. There are items to come to which criticism might be devoted, which have not passed the scrutiny of any auditing body. But this item has passed the scrutiny of the auditing body that pays the money, and they themselves ask us to pay it. The minister tells me, and I have no doubt he is correct, that lie has had no representations from the Indians at all against this arrangement in regard to the medical attendance on the reserve. Any one acquainted with the Indian character, and who knows the independence of the Six Nation Indians, as I do, knows very well that if there is any cause of complaint it is not long before the department hears of it. In a case of this kind, where there are
3,000	or 4,000 Indians governed by a council of very intelligent men, many of them educated, when they have expressed no dissatisfaction, I cannot see that there can be any strong criticism lodged against this expenditure or against anything connected with the medical attendance of the Six Nation Indians. It is their own money, they audit it, and it would not be paid without their sanction.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: If they are so intelligent and so well able to look after their 'own interests, why not allow them to select their own physician ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Their *physician is not forced upon them.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: You appoint him.

' The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS. Certainly, under an arrangement between the government and the Indians, who are their Wards, but the government do not over-ride the Indian council; and if any representations were made to the government by the council, through the Indian agent, that the Indians were not satisfied, the minister would look into them. No complaint however has ever been made, and hou. geutie-inen opposite evidently do not understand the question. But no doubt there are some Items in the estimates upon which they will be able to do a little better.


John Dowsley Reid: The position which the hon. minister takes is hardly fair. He knows that the government appoint the physician and that the Indians must accept him.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Not without protest.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: The Indians petitioned that Dr. Secord should be appointed.


John Dowsley Reid: The government appoint him, and the Indians have to accept him, though it may be possible that they have not protested. The hon. the Minister of the Interior took the ground that the opposition were trying to reflect upon Dr. Secord. That is not the case. But what we are objecting to is that Dr. Secord should be allowed to farm out the work. All we ask the minister to do is to give the position to the doctor now on the reserve, at the salary paid to Dr. Secord, of $2,850 if necessary. But as Dr. Holmes is doing this work for $1,200 as stated by the hou. member for Brant


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I do not know what he gets.


John Dowsley Reid: He is not getting $2,800. Why not give him the position as a small increase on the salary he is now getting and allow the Indians to benefit by the amount paid Dr. Secord for services he is really not performing. Another statement made by the hon. member for Brant was that this small-pox epidemic lasted for some four weeks.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I do not know how long it lasted. I thought that Dr. Secord was getting $50 a week, and if he was paid $800, that represented sixteen weeks.


John Dowsley Reid: He was getting $10 a day, and was paid for eighty-one days. That was three and one-half months, which the small-pox epidemic must have lasted.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Eighty-one days is not three and a half months.
Mr. REID (Grenville)). It is very nearly three months. At any rate it is much longer than the hon. member for Brant stated. And there is hardly any small-pox epidemic which lasts much longer than about
. Mr. COCHRANE.
four weeks. I cannot understand why so much was paid. Another point raised by the hon. member for Brant was that we required to have an old, experienced practitioner appointed. But in this case a man was sent without any experience who, according to the theory of the hon. member for Brant, should not have been allowed to treat these most serious cases because of his youth and inexperience. Does not the hon. member then consider that the government did an injustice to the Indians in sending this young man to treat them when the cases were so serious. In my opinion, a young practitioner who has just taken his degree and has had the benefit of the experience of the older practitioners given him through his medical education, is better qualified for the position ; and for that reason I believe that Dr. Holmes is the man best qualified to attend to the Indians. But the two statements of the hon. member for Brant contradict each other.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: This discussion convinces me how careful I am not to exaggerate. I said Dr. Secord attended about sixteen small-pox patients, and I find that he actually attended forty-three during twelve weeks.


William Humphrey Bennett: You said sixteen.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I made a mistake. He attended forty-three, for which he got $800, and his qualifications are best proved by the fact that he cured them all and stamped the disease out of the reserve.


John Dowsley Reid: What was the predecessor of Dr. Secord paid ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The same salary.


William Humphrey Bennett: How many pupils in the Elkhorn Indian school ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The total on the atendance roll is eight-five and the average attendance is seventy.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the cost per head of keeping those children there ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: 1 will tell the hon. gentleman in a moment.


William Humphrey Bennett: I may tell the hon. minister that I have found out what I wished to learn. The expense of conducting this Elk-horn industrial school was, in round numbers $20,000. So that the average cost of keeping each inmate was $300 a year.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend will understand that when he jumps from one item to another it necessary involves a little delay in looking up the facts. We were discussing the Indian affairs of Ontario, and this school is in the North-west. The average attendance at the Elkhorn industrial school is 70, and the average cost for maintenance of the in-

mates, not including tlie expenses connected with the building is about $200.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the whole cost is $20,000 for the institution and the average attendance is 70, that is very nearly $300 a head. That goes to support what I have been told-that this school is very extravagantly conducted.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The $20,000 referred to includes the amount spent in repairs and equipment of the build-lug. Exclusive of this the average of this is about $200.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is paid to the matron of the establishment ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
The wife of the principal is his assistant, and she receives $500 a year.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was there any increase in the	principal's salary	?The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
He gets $1,000-1 do not think there has been any increase.


William Humphrey Bennett: I was informed that he was advanced $250 last year, and that the matron is paid much more than at any other school, and these are among the reasons why the cost of this institution is so very high.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
I do not think there has been any change in the principal's salary, but I will undertake to give my hon. friend the information when we come to that vote. I am satisiied however, that there has been no increase in the principal's salary, though possibly there may have been an increase in the salary of his wife.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have had my attention drawn to the fact that while other schools are run at an average cost of $110 per pupil, this one, by reason of lack of business management runs up over $250.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The cost of maintaining the Elkhorn industrial school has been higher than it ought to be. I may say that one of the difficulties of the system of industrial schools is that it is not always possible to get pupils from the reserve to make up the quota for the school. The Elkhorn school for some considerable time found difficulty in getting the number of pupils it was entitled to, and the result was that the per capita expense was larger than it would otherwise have been. There has been a good deal of correspondence between the schools and the officers of the department, but my understanding is that tow matters have been reduced to satisfactory basis and the expense is about the same as that of other schools.


William Humphrey Bennett: Are they restricted to Indian children, or are half-breeds admitted?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: They are restricted to Indian children. The hon. member will understand that in law an Indian child is the child of a treaty Indian.


John Dowsley Reid: Was the resignation of Dr. Langrel voluntary, or was he request&d to resign ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It was voluntary.
Indians-Manitoba and North-west Territories, $25,070.


Haughton Lennox: Will the hon. minister explain ho w this is made up ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Last year there was a small-pox epidemic all over the west and we had a great deal of expense and trouble in connection with it. Up to date the expenditure has been $8,000 with some accounts still to come in. We estimate $10,000 for that. Then, there is $5,000 for the relief of Indians outside the treaty limits." The estimates for the liscal year 1902-3 did not contain an item for this service, possibly because of oversight on the part of officers of the department. The demands made upon the department for Indians for whom they had not funds have increased. We have $5,000 in the main estimates for this year, and this $5,000 is a corresponding item for last year. The Hudson's Bay Company have paid for the relief from their posts in the north $3,000 and the total accounts are expected to amount to $5,000. The next item is $6,000 which arises in this way :	When we make
our estimates for supplies of beef to furnish the Indians, we base them upon the prices which the officers of the department estimate will have to be paid. But, last jrear the prices went up before the contract was let, and there is a difference of about $6,000 which we have to provide for. Then there is $1,070 to pay the Indians of the Qu'Ap-pelle district for loss they sustained through the burning of their threshing machines and a certain amount of wheat.
The Indians on this reserve are the best Indians in the North-west Territories. They are under the charge of an extremely efficient agent, and they follow agriculture to a much greater extent than any other Indians. They purchased a threshing machine with their own money, and last year I think they raised about 47,000 bushels of wheat. They are the most progressive Indians we have. They suffered an accident in the burning of their threshing machine, and the agent recommended that we should give them a small sum to recompense them for the loss they had sustained, and this the department decided to do. Then there is an item of $3,000 required for these purposes. We had to send out a commission to settle the half-breed claims under treaty No. 8. Treaty No. 8 is a new treaty with the In-

dians in the district north of Edmonton, where we have within the last two or three years brought the Indians under treaty limits and obtained possession of the territory. We send out a man every year to make payments. The commission went out for the purpose of settling with the halfbreeds and to issue scrip two or three years ago. In the first place, the country is of vast extent, and the population is scattered. When the commission went up there for the purpose of taking evidence with regard to the half-breed claims, some of the halfbreeds were away hunting and fishing in different parts of the country, they did not all get there, and another officer went next year to take evidence. There are still some left, and for the purpose of clearing them all up we send this officer up there. I do not think it is likely we shall have to send him again. Another item is for the purpose of paying the salary of the medical officer. There is no physician resident in that whole country. One of the arrangements that was made at the time the treaty was entered into with the Indians was that when we sent our officer up there to pay the treaty money we would send a medical man along with him, so that when the Indians came to receive their money, if there were any among them seriously ill, they could bring them there to receive medical treatment at the same time. That was a stipulation specially made at the time the treaty was entered into. That is one of the things to which the Indians attach the most importance, and which we have endeavoured to carry out as well as we can. It is difficult to get a medical man to go there, and we have made an arrangement with an officer of the mounted police who is acquainted with the country, who is also a competent medical man, and knows the Indians very well, hence a very desirable man. He has undertaken to perform this service if we give him a special vote of $1,200 a year for that purpose. We cannot expect any man to undertake such a duty unless we give him a liberal allowance, because it involves a long and dangerous journey. After a good deal of discussion we made an arrangement with Dr. West to undertake that work, and in pursuance of the arrangement we are paying him $1,000 for ten months' service to June 30,1903. Then there is a sum of $500 for the purpose of paying a veterinary inspector of cattle. I may say that in the last five or six years we have succeeded in getting the Indians to go into cattle raising, they take much more kindly to cattle raising than to wheat raising. Their herds have now reached such an extent that we find it necessary to have the veterinary go around and make an inspection of the herds every year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Sometimes they kill their cattle and eat them.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There have been a few cases of that kind, Hon. Mr. SIFTON.
but on the whole, if the hon. gentleman will look at the report of the Indian Department this year he will find that the improvement they have made is very gratifying, especially in those cases where we have endeavoured to introduce cattle. Some bands of Indians' have absolutely refused to undertake agriculture of the ordinary kind, but they take very kindly to cattle raising. I think that as a result of the introduction of cattle raising among them, in the course of six or seven years we will be able to dispense with rations altogether. The next item is $600 for the purpose of increasing the salary of the inspector who goes north for the purpose of paying the Indians under treaty No. 8. He has been receiving $1,200, and I think lie ought to receive $1,800. He has proved himself a competent man to do that work. I did not feel disposed to recommend an increase of his salary until*he had performed-the work at least once, and he having done so, we find that he is quite competent. That makes up the total of $25,000 for which the hon. gentleman asked .explanations.


Mr. WILMOT.: Has the minister's attention been directed to a petition from the Indians on the St. John river and the St. Mary's river ? They sent a petition complaining of the management of their affairs. As to the merits of the petition 1 am not prepared to speak. The chief took a trip down to Ottawa clothed in the uniform of his office. I would urge the minister to look into the petition.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There was such a petition as my hon. friend refers to, which was sent to our agent there. He made an explanation which the deputy considered as satisfactory. If the hon. gentleman requires any further investigation, I will have it done.
Some resolutions reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that the hon. gentlemen opposite had a very interesting and secret conference to-day to settle their policy. Is the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) prepared to give us or the country any information regarding the policy that will be submitted to this House ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid I cannot gratify my hon. friend's womanly curiosity. Is he prepared to give us any information in regard to the secret conference which he and his friends have had ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, we were endeavouring to devise ways and means to frustrate the rascality of this government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not wonder that the hon. gentleman has at last admitted that because they have been making efforts for years without any success whatever, and even at this late day we wish them all good luck in the matter


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask the hon. gentleman what we may expect to do tomorrow ?	.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will resume the estimates of the hon. Minister of the Interior.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will that be all ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If we should be fortunate enough to get through we will take some other business, but judging from the progress that has been made this evening perhaps it will take some little time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, July 10, 1903.