1903-08-06

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 236) for the relief of Harford Ashley.-Mr. Porter.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER moved that item 47 on the Order Paper, to wit, second reading of Bill (No. 155) respecting the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court as to railway debts (Sir. Demers) be placed among government Orders.
Motion agreed to.

['It is not an additional charge, if it goes to ores in both cases.\nResolutions reported, read the first and second times, and agreed to.\nThe MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 239) respecting bounties on lead.']
Mr. CLANCY asked :: What increase of salaries have been granted to officers and employees of the Customs Department in Montreal during the last three months ? What are the names of these employees ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. William Paterson).: The following is a list of the increases in question :
Increase.
iM. Charlland	 $100
E. H. Mereier	 100
E.	T. Wilkes	 50
T. S. Slattery	 50
J. Davis	 50
J. S. Sorley	  50
T. Butler*	 50
A.	Bourret	 50
J. S. Loyer	 50
B.	Heroux	    150
J. Hough	 50
F.	L. Chetvrier	 100
A. E. Giroux	 100
J. M. Bessette	 150
J. A. Chlcoine	 50
R.	Fontaine	 50
P. Martin		50
P. J. O'Neil	 50
J. C. O. Bri&re	  50
T. ,T. Dawson	 100
E. O'Shea	 100
Mr. BORDEN fHalifax).
Increase. .
J. Z. Corheil	$ 100
J. McCluskey	 50
J. Murray	  50
B.	T. Holdbrook		100
N. Provost	 50
J. A. Robert		50
E.	Bernard	 50
H. McCamley	 50
J. Cannon	  50
J. A. A. Darin		50
D.	Manson	   50
iM. Neber	  50
J. DrySdalo	 50
S.	B. Lytle	
50S.	St. Jean	
50P. McGovern	
50M. McGurn	
50H. Gauthier	
140P. Keane	
50W. Murphy	
150T.	Logan	
100C.	Kllloran	
90F.	Brahant	
100J. B. Desbois	
100P. J. Martin	
89H. Hearne	
80P. Sansfacon	
50E.	Beauvais	
50J. Dwane	
30E. Elliott	
30P. Locke	
30



Mr. SCOTT asked :: What different sums of money have been paid, and at what dates, and on what account, to A. W. Wright, Conservative organizer, of Toronto ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: On the 29th October, 1895, Mr. Wright was appointed a commissioner to inquire into the sweating system hi Canada. He made his report on the 6th of March, 1896.
The total expenditure on account of this commission was $904.90, the details being as follows :
Services, eighty-eight days at $5
per day	$440	00Board and lodging	
269	50Travelling expenses	
174	20Miscellaneous	
21	20


$904 90 BRITISH COLUMBIA LABOUR COMMISSION.
Mr. EARLE asked :: Has the commission appointed by ithe government to investigate the labour troubles in British Columbia reported ? If so, will the report be laid on the Table of the House, and when ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: The commission has reported, and its report is now in the hands of the printer. As soon as the report is printed, a copy will be laid on the Table.


INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF GEOLOGYMEETING IN CANADA, 1906.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CARSCALLEN-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :

1.	Is it the intention of the government to invite the International Congress of Geology to hold its next meeting in Canada in 1906 ?
2.	If so, what steps have been taken to that end ?
3.	Have delegate® been appointed by the government to attend this year's congress in Vienna ?
4.	If so, who are they ?
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) :: 1. and 2. The government has informed the Royal Society of Canada that if the society's invitation to the International Congress of Geology is to hold its meetings in Canada in 1906 is accepted, the government will furnish certain funds for receiving and entertaining the congress.
3. and 4. Dr. Bell, the; acting director of the Geological Survey, has been given authority to proceed to Vienna as a representative of Canadian geologists and as delegate of the Royal Society, for the purpose of delivering the invitation.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC-PARISHES CROSSED-LEVIS TO TEMISCOUATA.
Mr. MORIN asked :: Whait parishes will the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific cross between the Quebec bridge, at Levis, and the county of Temiscouata ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: It is not possible to name the parishes through which the road will pass until the location of the road is made, but it may pass through the counties of LSvis, Dorchester, Bellechasse, Montmagny, L'lslet, Kamouraska and Temiscouata.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC-CROSSING OF MOUNTAINS.
Jean-Baptiste Morin: Iu what county and at what point will the line of the Grank Trunk Pacific cross the chain of mountains that separate it from the line of the Intercolonial ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
5.	Fielding). I can only say that the line has not yet been located, and we cannot answer the question definitely.


TRENT CANAL-EMPLOYMENT OF MEDICAL OFFICER.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria)-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
J. Who is medical officer to the government contracts and contractors on the Balsalm lake to Lake Simcoe section of the Trent canal ?
2. How far from the works does he reside ?
3* Has the government received any complaints anent his neglect of the workingmen on the works ?
4. What is his remuneration ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) :: 1. The Department of Railways and Canals have no doctor employed on the Balsam Lake to Lake Simcoe section of the Trent
canal, and are not aware as to whether or not the contractors employ one.
2.	The above answer, answers this question.
3.	The Department of Railways and Canals have received no complaints.
4.	Answer to No. 1 answers this question.


TRENT CANAL-PAYMENT OF WAGES- CASE OF MR. THOMAS DODDS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHESt. (Victoria)-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	Has the case of Mr. Thomas Dodds, of Woodville. now a patient in Lindsay hospital, been brought before the Department of Railways and Canals, he having been working on the Balsam lake to Lake Simcoe section of the Trent canal ?
2.	Is the government aware that he has not received his pay for some time, the excuse being given that the government has not paid the contractors ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding) :
1.	No record can he found in the department of any such complaint.
2.	The department is not aware that he has not received his pay for some time.

Mr. J. EMILE LEONARD (Laval).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, before the Order of the Day is called, I wish to draw the attention of the government to the fact that Bill (No. 235) concerning the National Transcontinental Railway has not yet been distributed to the House in French. I wish the government would hasten the printing of the French copy of the Bill.	-


BRITISH CABLE NEWS SERVICE.
[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. Mr. Fielding) moved that the House go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolutions :
That it is expedient to enact as follows
1.	The Governor in Council may authorize the payment of the following sums, in the respective fiscal years mentioned, for the purpose of assisting in establishing and maintaining an independent and efficient service of telegraphic news from Great Britain, for publication in the Canadian press :-
(a.) For the fiscal year 1903-4, a sum not exceeding fifteen thousand dollars, or at the rate of fifteen thousand dollars per annum for any period less than a year.
(b.) For the fiscal year 1904-5, a sum not exceeding fifteen thousand dollars.
(e.l For the fiscal year 1905-G, a sum not exceeding fifteen thousand dollars.
(d.l For the fiscal year 1906-7, a sum not exceeding ten thousand dollars.
(e.l For the fiscal year 1907-8, a sum not exceeding five thousand dollars.
2.	The said sums may he paid at such times and in such manner as the Minister of Finance
[Stage Direction]
may determine, to any association or committee representing the proprietors of such newspapers as may associate themselves for the purpose of establishing and maintaining such service.
Provided, however, that no payment shall be made under authority of this Act until the Minister of Finance shall have satisfied himself that the benefits of the service are open, on fair and reasonable terms, to all newspapers published in Canada ; and that not less than one-half the cost of establishing and maintaining such service is paid by the proprietors of the newspapers participating in the benefits thereof.
3. The Governor iii Council may make regulations for -carrying out the purposes of this Act.
Motion agreed to.
RAILAY ACT, 1903.	.
House went Into committee to consider the following proposed resolutions:
That it is expedient to provide as follows with respect to the salaries of the board, and other expenses incidental to the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill, now before the House, to amend and consolidate the law respecting railways :-
1.	The chief commisisoner to be paid a salary, of $10,000 per annum.
2.	The two other commissioners to be paid salaries of $8,000 each per annum.
3.	The secretary to he paid a salary to be fixed by the Governor in Council, not more than $4,000.
4.	Such salaries and remunerations to be paid to the other officers, staff and appointees of the board, and such other expenses to be paid incidental to the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill as are approved by the Governor in Council.
5.	The salaries of the commissioners and secretary t-o be paid monthly out of the unappropriated funds in the hands of the Receiver General. All other salaries, remunerations and expenses, including travelling expenses,, to be paid out of the moneys to be provided by parliament.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I am sorry that the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) is not in his seat at the momeut. He will be here soon. In the meantime, I may expose to the House the reasons' which have induced the government to suggest the salaries mentioned in these resolutions. These salaries are the highest that will be paid by the government for any officers that we have at the present time ; they are even higher than the salaries of the justices of the Supreme Court and superior courts of the land, higher also than the salaries of the ministers. It has been observed, and, I think, with a great deal of truth, that the salaries that are now paid to the highest judicial officers are becoming-indeed, have actually become-insufficient. No revision of such salaries has taken place for thirty-five years, since the opening of confederation ; and the opinion has been expressed more than once on the floor of this House


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: in past sessions, and during the present session also, that the time has practically arrived when it would be advisable to have a revision of salaries paid to the judges. The commission which we are organizing will have to discharge duties of no less importance than the duties now discharged by the judges. Some of the officers, especially the chief commissioner will have to be versed in the law generallly and in the law of railways, and versed also in all matters which appertain the practical working of railways. That being so, it seems to us that the salaries proposed are not at all too high. In comparison with the salaries to be paid other officers, it may perhaps sound high, but, looking at it from the point of view of the importance of the duties which are to be discharged by these officers, and judging it also by what is done for the judges and other officers of the government, I think the House will be disposed to agree with us that what we ask them to vote is not at all unreasonable. If we compare the salaries we propose for these commissioners with the salaries that are paid to railway managers, for instance, whose duties are no higher or no more important than those assigned to the chairman of the Railway Commission, it will perhaps be agreed, that these salaries are reasonable. It must be borne in mind also that the gentlemen who serve on this commission will be denied many of the advantages which to-day appertain to the judicial office. For instance, the judges of the land are not removable, holding office during good behaviour. The members of the commission are appointed for ten years, and even during those ten years they are removable.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Ten years ? I thought it was reduced.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I feel assured that I am right in saying the term is ten years. But during those ten years the tenure of the office is not so secure as the tenure of the office of judges, becaitse they may be removed in the same manner as lieutenant-governors are removed. The judges are not removable except after very exhaustive proceedings, they can only be removed upon an address voted by both Houses of parliament. From this consideration it seems to us that the sum of $10,000 which we propose to be paid to the chairman of the commission, is an adequate salary. If this sum is agreed upon as a reasonable compensation to the person who is to act as chairman of the commission, then we submit also that the sum of $8,000 pari passu ought to be the salary to be paid to the other two commissioners.


John Graham Haggart: What constitutes the qualifications of the other two gentlemen ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is no special qualification provided in the Act.


Mr. MACLEAN.: There is no qualification for any of them, none for the chief commissioner ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is no special qualification provided in the Bill.


John Graham Haggart: The only thing I would add is, has the government come to any conclusion as to who will be appointed on the commission V


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, the question has not been considered. I would suggest a brief amendment to the resolution, that instead of saying the ' chief commissioner ' we should use the words in the Bill, and say ' chairman of the commission.'


William Findlay Maclean: It is chief commissioner in clause nine of the Act.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If it is. then do not change it.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: In my opinion, my hou. friends on the treasury benches make a mistake in not paying suitable salaries. A minister of the Crown is not paid enough, though it is true he has the honour of leading a great party, and he has the privilege of being a Privy Councillor. But if you want, in this age, to get good men, honest men, you must pay them well. In my humble opinion the president of such a commission as this should be as well paid as the manager of a great railway corporation. I take the liberty of throwing out the suggestion, which perhaps may come more fittingly from me as I am an independent member of the House. The' government might perhaps on this occasion, at any rate, pay some consideration to the advice which I am tendering, and which I believe will be echoed by those who have given this subject some attention. The salary of $10,000 is altogether inadequate. The government will not be able to get a strong man as president of this commission for any such salary.


William Findlay Maclean: I would like to see the chief commissioner mentioned in this resolution paid at least $15,000 a year, and the two other commissioners paid $10,000. I would also like to see the manager of the government railways in this country paid at least a salary of $15,000. You canuot get men of the calibre required to take these offices, I believe, for a less sum than $15,000. Men who discharge similar duties in other positions are in receipt of $25,000 a year, and some of larger sums. Some bank managers are getting $15,000 to $20,000 a year, men who are not required to perform duties so important as those which men in this position will have to perform. 1 am not afraid to say in this House that 1 think the time has come when parliament ought to revise the salary list, and pay men of high executive capacity, and they are very rare, substantial salaries, something
like what they would get in the open market when other great corporations required to choose executive officers.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My own inclination would run in the direction indicated by the hon. member for St. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tarte) and my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean). There was a time when my ideas of economy were perhaps different from what they are today. At one time I thought it possible to diminish our public expenditure by millions of dollars. But I notice lately that every time we have attempted to do that our friends on the other side have prevented us from doing it. Therefore, 1 do not know exactly what to do in this matter, so I have taken the safe course of suggesting that we should adopt a salary of $10,000 a year. But if I live I shall not forget this expression of opinion, in which I largely share myself. The time may come perhaps when we shall have to attempt a revision of all the salaries paid under the government, especially the judicial salaries, and when we do so certainly the salaries allowed to these commissioners ought to be revised also.


Mr. INGRAM.: In view of what the right hon. gentleman has just stated, that he does not know what to do in this case, I am bound to say that that is the position every hon. member of this House is in at the present moment. He has not stated whether he intends to appoint as chairman of this board an expert railway man. If he does intend to have a first-class expert railway man, he certainly cannot secure such a man for $10,000 a year. If the hon. gentleman says that it is such a man that he wants to secure, then I, as a member of the opposition, say that the proposed salary is insufficient to secure a man of that character. I think it is very important that the government should secure an expert railway man, because such a man is needed to fill the position that has been created. But in deciding on the salaries to be paid to these officials, I think we are putting somewhat the cart before the horse. The government should have appointed these men in the first place, and then we would be in a better position to say what salaries ought to be paid to them.


Mr. SPROULE.: I would like to say for the comfort of the Prime Minister, who seems to have no one to come to his support, that in my judgment the great majority of the people of this country will think that the salaries he proposes to pay the railway commissioners are large enough, and unless he gets an extra superior man for chairman, the people will think the salary is perhaps a little high. So the right hon. gentleman need not worry very much about the danger of people grumbling, because he has not put the salary high enough. I am rather inclined to think he will re-

ceive the support of the great majority of people in his desire to keep it down.


Hon. Mr.   BOSS@Victoria, N.S.: I am glad to find that the ideas of the first minister are getting expanded, that he has larger ideas now than he had in former times. I hope, if he lives to be as old as I am, his ideas will keep getting larger and larger. We must remember the condition of things existing now in comparison to what they were in former times. While my hon. friend from St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has not the honour of being a minister, he has the honour of being what I was once myself, an ex-minister of the Crown. So we must wear these honours with our usual modesty. The late Lieutenant Governor Tilley told me that when he went home to London on a delegation with my great friend, Joe Howe, as they used to call him, Howe used to say to him, ' Tilley, you must enlarge your ideas, you must have a wider breadth of beam, and if you live to my age, you will get clear of these narrow ideas.' I would say another thing to the right hon. leader of the government, and it is that if you are to have first-class men, you must give them first-class salaries; otherwise you cannot get first-class men.


William Findlay Maclean: Perhaps the right hon. leader of the government would tell us whether there is any prospect of the farming portion of the community being represented on this commission.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think such is the intention.


Mr. MONK.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if any estimate has been made of the total cost of this commission ? There is an amount of 810,000. two amounts of $8,COO each and then $4,000 for the secretary. Of course, this is only a part of the cost of the commission. Can the government give us any idea what the annual cost will be ?


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: Perhaps I may be able to throw a little light upon the question that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) has asked while of course I cannot undertake to say that in what I may observe, I am expressing the present views of the government. The subject has received more or less consideration from myself, and I endeavoured to form a judgment as to what sum it would be desirable to ask parliament to grant the first year at all events for the purpose .of the maintenance of this board. Looking at the amount of work which would naturally devolve upon it in the earlier part of its existence, considering that it would be called upon to enter upon inquiries and investigations in different portions of the country, and considering that in connection with these inquiries and investigations there will be more cr less expense in summoning witnesses, procuring expert aid and assis-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: tance of various kinds in different localities,
I thought that it would be unwise and unsafe to ask parliament to vote anything less than $100,000 for the first year. It may prove that the estimate is somewhat excessive. If it proved to be excessive no harm would be done if there was proper provision to enable the commission to work out the purposes for which it was created. If, on the other hand the sum that was voted, proved inadequate, it would practically disable the commission frcm performing its work.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We shall ask in the supplementary estimates for an appropriation for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the commission, but, as to the precise amount of it, I could not say anything at the present moment.


William Findlay Maclean: Section 21 of the Bill says :
The Governor in Council may from time to time, or as the occasion requires, appoint one or more experts, or persons having technical or special knowledge of the matters in question. to assist in an advisory capacity in res-peicit of any matter before the board.
2. There shall be attached to the board such officer's, clerks, stenographers and messengers, as the board, with the approval of the Governor in Council, fnom time to time appoints, at such salaries or remunerations as are recommended by the board and approved by Governor in Council. The board may, at will, dismiss any such employee.
I take that to mean that the Governor in Council can appoint all these officers.


Andrew George Blair: He will do so.


William Findlay Maclean: On the recommendation of the board.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The estimate made by the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) seems to be a very fair and just one, considering the work that is going to be confided to this commission. At the same time, I, for my part, agree very much with what has been said by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and it seems to me, that, as regards the assistance, which no doubt the commissioners will require, we ought to be able to find a man and two assistants to do the work required at the salaries which have been proposed by the government. These salaries are reasonably high. But, it occurs to me that it would have been wiser for us in view of the very large expenditure for which we are exposed in the creation of another commission, as I understand it, for the purpose of building the eastern section of the proposed transcontinental railway to defer for the present the creation of this commission.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time, agreed to and referred to the Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 21.)


RAILWAY ACT, 1903.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 21) to amend and consolidate the law respecting railways.
On section 255,
The MINISTER OB' JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick). I propose an amendment, the object of which is that there shall he no change in the classification until notice of the application to have the change made has been published in the ' Canada Gazette ' so that all parties interested may have proper notice and be represented if they desire. The change will be by way of an addition to the clause":
No goods shall be removed from any lower to any higher class until two weeks notice shall have been given in the ' Canada Gazette.'
Mr. KEMP.: Two weeks would not be sufficient notice for British Columbia, for Instance. I think it should be at least six weeks.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Very well, we will make it read :
Until six weeks notice shall have been given in the ' Canada Gazette ' or such further notice as the board may determine.
Mr*. KEMP. I think that will be satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I wish to add as section 309 (a) the following :
In every case in which the parliament of Canada votes financial aid by way of subsidy or guarantee towards the cost of railway construction, all mechanics, labourers or other persons who perform labour on such construction shall be paid such wages as are generally accepted as current for competent workmen in the district in which the work is being performed ; and if there be no current rate in such district then a fair and reasonable rate. In the event of dispute arising as to what a current or fair and reasonable rate is, the same shall be determined by the Minister of Railways whose decision shall be final.


John Graham Haggart: Have you copied that from the imperial contracts?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Practically.


John Graham Haggart: I do not think you should impose on the Minister of Railways the duty of fixing the wages.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He will have to submit the question to some expert, and though it will be his decision, it will not be his task.


John Graham Haggart: I think it is sufficient to copy the clause in the imperial contracts without making reference to the Minister of Railways.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: You would need some tribunal to appeal to.


Mr. CLARKE.: What is the meaning of that clause ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The meaning of it is that the contractor should be obliged to pay in the particular district in which the work is done the rate of wages which is current for similar work performed by other people in the neighbourhood. That is to say, the contractor shall not have the right to bring in a lot of men and pay them wages far below that rate.


William Findlay Maclean: Does that apply to companies which have already received government assistance ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: A somewhat similar provision is already in the Subsidy Act.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has the hon. minister made any provision for a case in which the contractor contracts himself out of this obligation ? The hon. gentleman will remember the case which arose a few days ago in which a firm of contractors who had. a contract for a public building at Nelson in the province of British Columbia, made an agreement with some men in the province of Quebec to go out at less wages than the current rate in the locality. They went out and did the work, not knowing what the rate of wages in the locality was until they arrived there, and on their return they sued tiie contractor. The Public Works Depart-men ignored the fair wage contract, and declined to asisst the men in any way. Has, the hon. minister made provision against a* recurrence of a case of that kind ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think it would be exceedingly difficult for us to provide against a contract being made between a contractor and his employees as to th.e payment of any particular rate of wages. But the government have a right to make provision that a contractor who receives aid from the government shall pay a particular rate.


Edward Frederick Clarke: As I understand, there was a clause in the agreement between the contractor and the Crown that the contractor should pay the current rate of wages, and he ignored that provision. Can there be a repetition of such a case ? I think the hon. member for Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Gallihter) knows the circumstances of that case better than I do.
Mr. GALL1HER. In that case I think it was pointed out that in the contract made between the contractor and the men who were brought from the province of Quebec to British Columbia there was a consideration that their employment should be for a fixed term, that is, during the continuance of the erection of the building. That in itself, as I pointed out at the time, was to my mind a good consideration. They also received their transportation to the place of work and back home again if they chose

to come, and their keep in the meantime. 1 think that was the distinction that was pointed out. Further, in the contract which those men signed there was a statement in express words that they knew perfectly well that they were not receiving the wage that was being paid in the locality. Consequently they knew what they were contracting about. I am not justifying the transaction at all; I am simply stating the circumstances.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would like to ask the bon. Minister of Justice if there is anything to prevent men who know what the prevailing rate of wages is in the district where the work is going on, doing what these men did in the case of the Nelson post oflice- contracting to work for less than the current rate of wages, provided the contractor pays their fare ? Does that do away with the obligation of the contractor ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have not given the matter very much consideration; but it appears to me at first sight that no legislation that we could pass here could affect a contract of that sort. That is a contract relating to civil rights which has to be regulated by the laws of the province in which the contract is made. But, on the other hand, when we enter into a contract with a contractor or a company, and we undertake to give a subsidy towards the work that is to be done, we have a right to stipulate that the contractor or the company shall do certain things, and we can enforce that stipulation by means of the subsidy which we have in our hands when we come to make a settlement with them. But that is an entirely different thing from the point suggested by my bon. friend from West Toronto, which refers to contracting out by the labourer.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I think it was brought out pretty clearly that there was money for the work in the hands of the government when these men made their claim; but the ex-Minister of Public Works seemed to ride rough-shod over the Department of Labour, for he decided off-hand that the balance under the contract was due to the contractor, and paid it over. The men found, after they deducted their fare to Nelson * and return, that they were $100 or $200 each short of the amount they would have received if the wage contract between the government and the contractor had been observed. There does not appear to be any machinery to enforce this wage clause, and it ought to be provided for here.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am now getting some information on the subject which my hon. friend has brought up, and I do not think all the facts in that case have been before the House. I was not here when the matter was discussed, but I have some recollection that a case of that kind came to the Department of Justice Mr. GALLIHER.
from the Department of Public Works. It was the case of a foreman who entered into a contract at Hull to work in British Columbia for a firm of contractors, one of whom was named Lemoine. He went out there, and asked to be paid the rate of wages that was paid in that particular locality to men occupying a different position. The papers came over to me and I think we reported to the Public Works Department that they were not entitled to retain any part of the subsidy. I speak from memory, however. If the matter is to be discussed thoroughly, I would like to have a proper memorandum prepared, so as to state to the House what the real facts of the ease were.


Mr. GALLIHER.: I think the case spoken of by the hon. member for West Toronto is not the same case. That case, I think, was never referred, the point being that there was no schedule rate of wages for a foreman in the labour regulations. The other case is, I think, a case of a blacksmith from Montreal.


Mr. FRASER.: I remember, when the case was up, that reference was made to the fact that he knew what the terms of the contract with the government were. Knowing that they were entitled by law to receive a certain wage, if they choose to contract for another wage, they have a right to do so.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Can they do that under this clause?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I would think that any special contract for a valid consideration would be effective. Any man may enter into any valid contract he pleases with his eyes open.


William Findlay Maclean: That is the point. It is quite clear that if a workman can contract himself out his rights, then the law becomes inoperative. If he signs away his rights he has no recourse.


Mr. LANCASTER.: If this clause is intended to have any effect, it is to compel contractors to pay the wages usually paid in the locality where the work is done. To allow the labourers to contract themselves out of that right would be to nullify this provision. If we have the right to stipulate that the contractor shall pay certain wages, that carries with it the right to stipulate that any agreement made between a contractor and a labourer contrary to this provision would be null and void.


William Findlay Maclean: The same question has come up in the matter of the Grand Trunk Railway benefit fund. The Grand Trunk Railway employees have been signing their rights away, and it is proposed to insert a clause that will protect them even if they do so.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If a contractor can make an agreement that will relieve him from the

obligation imposed by this law, the law is a dead letter.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: No, because in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the men would not enter into such a contract. They hardly ever do except they are going away a long distance and have some special reason. If a man thought it would be better for him to go to a new country and that was part of the consideration, he should be bound by the contract he made with his eyes open. If the Act of parliament said that by no contract could he put himself outside the statute, that would be different, but that would be going rather far.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Can there be any objection to doing that once we undertake to interfere with the freedom of contract? The object, I presume, is to prevent a contractor beating down wages by bringing men from a distance. If be should bring men from a distance, he ought to pay them the wages current in the locality where the work is being done.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: As the bon. Minister of Justice has pointed out a provision in the statute against contracting would be ultra vires. But if we make it part of the law whenever railways are receiving financial aid from the government, the workingmen employed in construction are entitled to a fair wage, then the government, in a contract with the railway company, may insert the condition that the company shall satisfy the government that it has. complied with all the provisions of the statute. In this way you will have secured an effective remedy for the workingman.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would there be any objection to putting in a clause providing that the workingmen shall not be allowed to contract themselves out of their rights?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. Minister of Justice fully treated that point. He has given the opinion that any declaration in this Act that a workingman could not contract himself out would be null and void. It could not affect the legal rights one way or the other.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Do I understand that a contractor may present a document binding the workman to receive less than a fail-wage, and if the workman signs it, he is not bound by it? I did not understand the Minister of Justice to make that statement. I would like to know if that is his opinion of the law-that it is impossible for a man to contract himself out ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Of course it is not. I did not say it was impossible. I said that this amendment, being part of the general Act. if a company becomes entitled to financial aid, the practice is for an agreement to be made between the Crown and the company setting forth the terms under which the company is to be eu-255
titled to payment. The mere voting of a subsidy by this House does not complete the contract between the Crown and a railway company. The contract has to be entered into, and that contract contains necessary provisions. It seems to me that it would be proper, in framing a contract between the Crown and the railway company, under which the company was to be entitled to financial aid voted by parliament, to insert in that contract provisions requiring the company to comply with the law whatever it is. If the law is that the company shall pay to the men certain wages, it would be proper to provide for a compliance with that condition in the contract. And it does not appear to me that the contractor would be entitled to say that he has complied with the provision of the fair wage by showing that he had not paid a fair wage because the workmen had chosen to surrender the right to be paid a fair wage.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir William Mulock) is making everything depend on the contract and not on the statute.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) in any way object to this parliament declaring that such an agreement is null and void ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the use of the clause ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will move to strike it out ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Oh, no.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman objects to it, but will not have it struck out.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not object. But I simply want to point out to the minister that he is giving these workmen a gold brick instead of something that will be of real benefit to them. If the contractors can contract themselves out of the obligation to pay the current wages, what is the use of the clause? The contractor is fully aware of every condition of the contract he enters into with the government, and the men lie is employing may not toe. And it may be, as in the ease of the men sent to Nelson, that it will be alleged that the privilege of seeing the romantic and beautiful scenery between the place where they made the agreement and the place where they went to work is compensation for the loss of the fair wage-that that is one of the conditions. Or it may be said that their fares were paid there and back. If these conditions may be interposed between the contractors and the government, what use is this law ?


Mr. COCHRANE.: Not being a lawyer, I have often wondered, when there was a , certain principle agreed to by the commit-



tee, why it could not be worded in such a fashion as to convey to everybody what is intended to be conveyed. We see that difficulty again right here. And I would suggest to the Postmaster General and Minister of Labour (Hon. Sir William Mulock) that when the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) is introducing a Bill he should allow that kon. gentleman himself to tell us what he means by it. The Minister of Justice is supposed to deal with legal questions, and I think he is prepared to explain anything he proposes to the House. As I understand, there is a consensus of opinion that any contractor who receives aid from the government should be required to pay his men the current rate of wages in the place where the work is being carried out. If that is the principle we are going to affirm, why cannot the Minister of Justice word a clause in the statute so that it will carry out the idea of the committee ? I understand that as the clause is now worded it is possible-as in the case of the men employed in this part of the country to work in British Columbia-for a contractor to make such an arrangement with his men that they may be cheated out of the wages that they would be entitled to under what was supposed to be the law. It seems to me that the Minister of Justice could prepare a clause that would prevent the contractor from doing this. Suppose, for instance, that a contractor in British Columbia having a contract to which this section applied arranged with Chinese labourers to do the work at such wages as those labourers were willing to accept, but which would make it impossible for white labourers to obtain employment on the work at the rate of wages current in the district. Thin would clearly be contrary to what the committee intended, and I do not see why the Minister of Justice could not prepare a clause which would legally carry out what we wish, and one that would not provoke a controversy among legal men as to what it means.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: The proposition of my hon. friend the Postmaster General with regard to this matter seems peculiar. If there were no contract as to wages, or, to express it more accurately, if the rate of wages were not expressed in the contract between master and servant, you would have exactly the rate of wages provided for in the clause, namely, the current rate of wages in the district. But, according to the Postmaster General, you cannot interfere with a contract. Therefore, this clause has no operation at all. It lias no operation in the case which has been suggested, because you get that rate of wages anyway in the absence of any other rate being'fixed in the contract ; and, in the other case, according to the Postmaster General, the clause which we are proposing to pass is ultra vires of this House, and so, of course, has no operation. I have not given careful con-Mr. COCHRANE.
sideration as, no doubt, the Minister of Justice has done, to the question as to how far you can go in the direction of interfering with contracts. It all depends upon that, of course. But I should not think you were going any further by saying that this should prevail notwithstanding any provision in the contract between master and servant. If you intend to touch the case where the rate of wages has been agreed upon between master and servant, I should think, with all deference to the Minister of Justice, that you are not going further if you say ' notwithstanding anything in the contract between master and servant.'


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If this section is good, that would go as a matter of course.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax.) Perhaps so. Well, are you only going one step further-I do not think you are-when you say in addition to that that the servant shall not lie allowed by any contract to put himself outside the provisions of this Act ? Does my hon. friend the Minister of Justice think you are going further there ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am afraid so. That is a matter I have considered rather carefully.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax), I have an absolutely open mind on the subject, and the Minister of Justice may be able to convince me. In one case you say that this statute shall take effect notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in the contract between master and servant. You are certainly dealing with the question of contract there, and you are getting the power to do so because that is supposed to be incident to the subject you are dealing with. If you go a step further, and say that any agreement not to observe the provisions of this section shall, as between master and servant, be void, are you really overstepping the line ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Let me state the position, as I understand it. Of course, as to the question of contract, that must be regulated according to the law of tile province within the limits of which the contract is made. I do not say that it is impossible for us to interfere with the contract, such as is here made, any more than With any other contract. But I do think that if we grant aid, for instance, toward the construction of a railway, we have a right to make it a condition of the grant that the company that receives the aid shall apply that money, in connection with the contract with its labourers, according to a fixed rate of wages. Now, we can only enforce that contract, so far as we are concerned, against the contractor or the railway company, or the individual, and in this case I speak of the railway company. We can only enforce it against the railway company ; but we could not step in for the purpose of en-

forcing a contract against or in the interest of the employee of the railway company, because that is a contract absolutely lnde-[DOT] pendent of us.


Mr.   CIARKK@: Where does the employee come in ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In so far as we may be able by this indirect method to force the company, or the contractor, to pay the labourer a particular rate of wage, the company or contractor would feel that there was a penalty attaching to the non-fulfilment of the conditions. I have considered this matter as far as I could, and I do not see what more we can do.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend may be right,, because he has considered the question and I have not. But, I want to ask him this :	If you can deal in that indirect
way to the extent the hon. gentleman has stated, why can you not deal in that indirect way to the extent of preventing the employee from contracting himself out ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We might perhaps go so far as to prevent the employer from making a contract of that sort, but I do not think we could control the employee. There is no contract between us and the employee, but there is a contract beween us and the contractor.


Robert Laird Borden: But would not that observation have the same application to what I said a moment ago ?


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Justice says it is only a sort of penalty which attaches to the party who contracts with the government. Supposing the government were to say : You have not been paying fair wages to your men, and we will retain the difference between what you have paid and what you ought to have paid. Can you do that ? To whose benefit is the monejr to accrue ? Does it go into the exchequer of the country, or has the Minister of Railways and Canals power to return it to the labourer ? I think the first position the Minister of Justice took was the correct one. Is this an incident to something which we have power to do, that is, the building of a railway ? We can exercise our juris. diction to the fullest extent possible in building a railway. We can pass an Act of parliament which prevents an employee from contracting himself out, because that is an incident to the power we have of building a railway, we have full jurisdiction over that subject. I should say it is an incident to this power for us to see that fair wages should be paid to the employees upon the construction of any road which is being built under government supervision. If it is an incident to it, you have a right to say that the contractor shall pay to the employee a fair wage :	if not, you must
said, that it interferes with the jurisdiction of the local government over a contract be-255i
tween the employer and employee. You must take one of the horns of the dilemma.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Might I ask the Minister of Justice if there is not a form of affidavit current in some of the departments, I think in the Post Office Department, which has to be made by persons who supply goods to the Post Office Department ? I think the contractor has to say in that affidavit that he has paid the current wage, and that he has complied with certain sanitary conditions.
, The MINISTER OF .1 JSTICE. I am not aware of that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would it not be possible to provide a form of affidavit to which the contractor must subscribe, certifying that he has made no contract in violation of this section V


John Graham Haggart: What does the minister do with the penalties that he is going to enforce under this Act ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Ask the Minister of Railways and Canals that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The case of the public building at Nelson occupied the time of this House some days ago, but I do not think the Minister of Justice was present when that case was discussed. It was a case of three brothers who had engaged with the contractors of a building in British Columbia, and had contracted themselves out of the rate of wages mentioned in the schedule to the contract. It was evident by their agreement that there was an intention to escape the rate of fair wages mentioned in the schedule. I remember that these terms were used, that the amount paid to them was so much, but that in view of the advantages the contractor offered them by paying their passage money out, and giving them board, which would be deducted later from their wages, these advantages should be considered an equivalent to the $5 a day which was the rate mentioned in the schedule attached to the contract. It was urged here very strongly that we had no power, as the Minister of Justice observed a moment ago, to interfere with a contract made between the employee and the employer, and the fact, when representations were made to the Department of Labour and to the Department of Public Works, which was the department interested in that construction, they seemed to have come to the conclusion that as that agreement had been made between the parties, it was impossible to give these three men the relief they claimed, because they claimed that relief ; and in consequence of that contract having been made, they lost the sum they were claiming,' which amounted in the aggregate to nearly 81,200.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They have not lost it.
.COMMONS


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They have lost it unless they take the recourse suggested by the Minister of Labour of going into the courts.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: But the hon. gentleman said they were sure to win, and the defendants are responsible.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the schedule had been observed they would have had the money at once.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Why did they lose it V


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is a matter of determining the rate of wages. But when we voted a sum of $40,000 for the Department of Labour we imagined the labourers would be saved the misfortune of falling into the clutches of lawyers. Now, this amendment of the Minister of Justice appears to me to be on the face of it a very wise one, but I would suggest to him the advisability of adding a proviso that any contract made by the employer in avoidance of this clause, would be null and void. The labourers would find it out quickly enough, as my hon. friend knows, and the employer would be warned by the law that he must make no stipulation which would deprive any man of his fair and equitable wage. I think that would be an admissible law, it is not contrary to public order, and it is perfectly fair. It would simply state that the workman, who is very often the victim of the necessities and blandishments of the employer, would have that protection that the law declares in the contract he should have, and that if he makes any contract with the contractor in avoidance of the terms of this clause it will be null and void. My hon. friend from Grey suggested that it might be an interference with the right of contract. There are cases in which parliament can interfere with the right of contract. We had one under discussion yesterday, and this very clause, now I think is an interference with the right to contract, and a justifiable one and the only suggestion I make to the hon. Minister of Justice is to add that proviso.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have considered the wisdom of making the provision that my hon. friend refers to, that the labourer shall not have power to contract out, and I am of opinion that this cannot be done, that it is not in our power here to regulate contracts between employer and employee. I do not think we can interfere with that ; at the same time, the matter is one that is worthy of consideration and I am quite willing to consider the matter further if it is so desired, but I must confess that up to the present time I have not seen how it is at all possible to interfere with a contract between employer and employee.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Could you not make the employer sign a statement to the effect that Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
he had not evaded the payment of the current rate of wages ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, we could make him do anything that we choose in respect to his employees, but that is a matter of contract between himself and the department.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Could you not provide that he shall make an affidavit that he has not contracted himself out of his obligation to pay the current rate of wages? The hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir. Wm. Mulock) has some such affidavit that he requires all persons doing business with his department to subscribe to.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That would be a matter of contract between the employer or the contractor and the department, but I do not think that it ought to be made a matter of statute.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Of course, my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier pointed out how these men could be imposed upon, and if the desire of parliament is to protect them and to see that they are paid the current rate of wages, we ought to be able to provide machinery to carry out our intention.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think a contract such as was referred to by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier by which the labourer would contract out of the provisions of the law woidd be perfectly valid in our province. Under our law a labourer has the right to contract out. It would not be enforceable in Ontario as I understand because I am informed that the contractor cannot contract out under the Employers' Liability Act. An amendment might be made to the Civil Code in our province to prevent a labourer from contracting out, but I do not- see how we could make that amendment here.


Mr. PUTTEE.: I should like to point out to the hon. Minister of Justice that if it is acknowledged that power to contract out lies in the clause it is practically acknowledging that it is of very little use to the worker who needs this protection most, because, if there is power to contract out, the worker is going to be practically forced to contract out.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Puttee) seems not to have read the provisions. While a man has a perfect right to contract out it relieves the contractor ns to the labourer, but not as to the department. The department can still enforce this agreement against the contractor.


Arthur W. Puttee: While the department can go on and enforce its contract with the contractor I am surprised to hear the opinion that contracting out would still be allowed. It must be remembered that the proposal to contract out would always be made on the part of the employer himself. There

is another matter that I would like to mention. This amendment is carrying out in almost the exact terms the resolution of 1900, that went through this House and, of course, it is only right and proper that we should apply it to all railway grants, bonuses and subventions, as I believe it has been applied to some in the past. We have had three years' experience of trying to enforce the current wage resolution and a good deal of information has been acquired upon the subject. The British House of Commons after having this resolution In force for six years, appointed a commission to inquire into its working and found out a great many of the drawbacks which are similar to those which we have experienced, in this country in the last few years. The very fact that the resolution was of some use has been proved by the number of expedients that have been resojrted to on behalf of contractors to overcome it. In the amendment which has been proposed the hon. Minister of Justice will see it is proposed that in case a dispute arises as to the current rate or fair rates the matter shall rest for decision with the Minister of Railways and Canals. Is the hon. minister aware that we have fair-wage officers whose whole duty lies in ascertaining what fair or current rates of wages a re in different parts of the country ? I should imagine that with the experience they have had these officers are becoming supplied with very valuable information as to what fair and current rates are throughout the country and it seems to me that the Minister of Railways and Canals would have no officer in his department to whom he could delegate this work in case of a question arising as to what was a fair rate of wages.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: These fair-wage officers who are in existence may be used for the purpose of giving advice to the Minister of Railways and Canals when he is called upon to decide as to whether or not a contractor is complying with the terms of his contract, but I think it would be going rathefr too far to say that we should substitute a fair-wage officer for the minister in connection with an important matter of this sort.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think with some other hon. gentlemen that it is very important if it is possible that we should protect the workingmen, because there is no doubt-I say this with no desire to appear as the protector of the workingman especially-that they will be the sufferers unless some relief can be afforded to them by the amendment suggested by my hon. friend. When this session opened, the hon. Minister of Justice will remember that I had a Bill before the House by which I endeavoured to place the responsibility for fires caused by railway companies upon the railway companies, but I admitted that the matter of torts or damages was a provincial matter and that we
could not directly legislate in this House that railways under the control of this Dominion should be responsible for fires caused by their locomotives. I thought that was impossible because it was an invasion of the provincial field by the Dominion legislature. Therefore, my Bill consisted of an endeavour to make clearer some provisions of the Interpretation Act so as to arrive indirectly at the result which it was desired to obtain. But that did not meet with the views of the hon. Minister of Justice ; whereas, a direct law decreeing in very words that the railway companies shall be responsible for fires caused by the locomotives, is now incorporated, as I understand, in this Bill. In other words if my view is correct we have legislated on a matter of damage and tort which is in the provincial field exclusively in a manner designed to meet the point. According to the view entertained by my hon. friend, I suppose that we were legislating in regard to Dominion railways and that therefore we could impose any conditions that we chose upon the railways under our control even if those conditions constituted an invasion of the provincial field of legislation. I believe that has been held by the Privy Council in the case of the taxation of the banks which came up before the provincial court and went to the Privy Council. If we can do that why cannot we legislate in the sense that no contract by which a labourer will have contracted out of the conditions mentioned i:n the law will be available before the department, or some such legislative disposition without decreeing especially that any contract made by the labourer with the employer shall be null and void, which might, as the hon. Minister of Justice says, be beyond the powers of this legislature, or say, as least, that any such contract cannot he invoked between the contractor and the labourer in so far as the subsidy granted by this parliament is concerned ? I would not undertake to word the clause ; I have no doubt my hon. friend the Minister of Justice can do it much better than I can. But if we have legislated that the damages occasioned by fires caused by locomotives under the control of railways that are under our control, shall be paid by the railway company, surely we have the right to legislate in regard to the contracts existing between contractors and labourers on railways which are under our immediate control. That is the point I wish to make.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not think the two things can be compared. In the case of damage by fires the position is that where an individual who suffers damage applies to the railway company for redress, he can only apply on the principle that there has been fault on the part of the railway company, which fault has resulted in damage to the individual who seeks redress. Wliat the Privy Council decided in the case of Roy vs. the Canadian Pacific Railway was, that if a company does that

which the legislature authorized it to do, there can be no fault, and it seems .to me that notwithstanding all that has been said about that judgment, it is a most elementary principle that there can be no fault where there is legislative sanction for doing the thing complained of. With respect to the amendment to which my hon. friend referred, what we decided here was purely and simply that while we authorized the company to operate its road in a particular way-if we limited ourselves to that we would relieve them from responsibility for anything that might happen so long as they remained within the law-we specifically extended that feature in the doing of the thing we authorized, by saying that for damage occasioned by way of fire caused by them, they would be responsible. . That is to say, we limit the extent to which they , would have the right to go in connection with the operation of their road. That is completely within our control. But what I cannot up to the present time see is,where we can get authority to interfere with a contract entered into between two individuals within the limits of any particular province with respect to the lease and hire of service. A contract is made between two individuals, and if the law of a particular province allows absolute freedom of contract with respect to that, then how could we do anything here which could in any way influence that particular contract or modify it ? How can we restrict the right of the parties to that contract? How can we determine any limit to the area within which they can contract ? Where do we get authority to do it ? I Contend that we have a perfect right to say to a man who asks us for assistance, that in consideration of the assistance we are giving him he shall do so and so, and if he doesn't do it we have recourse against him for failure on his part to comply with the terms of his contract. But that wie can govern the relations between himself and some one else for the benefit of that other person, I cannot see where we can get authority to do it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the Minister of Justice is right the only question is this : Can we push our right to legislate in regard to these railways that are under our control to the point that we will regulate the relations existing on those railways between employer and employee. My hon. friend, I suppose, admits that principle ?


Andrew George Blair: Railways do not come under the control of this government simply because they receive subsidies from it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As far as the subsidy is concerned, they do come under the control of this government.


Andrew George Blair: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then, going beyond that point which was mentioned by my hon.


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: friend, since we have the right to legislate as to federal railways, it seems to me that we have the absolute right to legislate as to the relations that will exist between the employers and employees on these railways. That is going very far, but it seems to me it is not going too far. As my hon. friend admits, the moment we grant a subsidy to a railway we can attach such conditions as we like to the granting of that subsidy. The Minister of Justice, by his amendment, goes this far : He decrees what shall be the relations between the railway company to whom the subsidy is granted and its employees, but he says that we cannot go so far as to declare void any contract in relation to that employment between those employers and those employees. I submit that we can interfere with such a contract, since we have the right on the granting of the subsidy to legislate as to the relations between employers and employees. We can go so far as it may be necessary for us to attain the object which the hon. gentleman has in view in this amendment, and we can declare that a contract made between a subsidized railway and its employees in avoidance of this amendment shall not be a contract which can be invoked between the parties. We can go that far.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: When I spoke on this matter about an hour ago, I am afraid I did not impress upon the Minister of Justice what my meaning was. I intended to convey to the Minister of Justice that instead of being afraid of interfering with other people's rights in that contract, we might be permitting them to interfere with our right of contract if we stopped short of what I suggested. That is to say, that any contract sought to be made-I would not say any contract made, because I do not admit they would have the right to break a contract entered into with us-but that any contract sought to be made in violation of this stipulation should be null and void for the purpose of this section. What I mean by saying that they might be interfering with our own right of contract is this: We certainly have the right to contract in regard to these subsidies: we have the right to say what conditions shall exist in the granting of these subsidies. When we make a contract with a contractor we say that one of the conditions shall be for the benefit of some other individuals who are citizens of Canada, and not for the benefit of the Dominion of Canada itself as a government. The government of Canada seeks to say to the contractor that these Individuals who are workmen shall have certain rights which the contractor shall not take away from them. The minute. we say that the power of a provincial legislature can make our contract ultra vires, then we are saying:	Although we
made this contract with this contractor intending him to carry it out for the benefit

of the workmen, we at the same time recognize that he shall have the right to violate it if he sees fit.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Oh, no; you can enforce it against him.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The fact is that we have been arguing in a circle. We must be intending by that contract that this contractor shall pay a certain scale of wages and if we recognize that some one else can evade the effect of that contract then we are saying that our contract is no good.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Why some one else ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We are making a contract for the benefit of these workmen, and if we let it be understood that without the consent of the government, that the contractor can make another contract with these very people we have undertaken to protect, then we are doing away with the whole benefit of our contract.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: And if he does that he pays the penalty.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But what good does the penalty do the men we are trying to protect ? What is the object of the contract ? It is to benefit these workmen, and how are they going to get their fair wages by that penalty being paid ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Because the man who is subject to the penalty is more likely to 'do what is required of him.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is there any better way by which we can prevent a contractor making these unfair contracts than by expressly enacting that if he does make such a contract it will not be of any use to him after he has made it ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the contractor and the workmen have a right to agree together to that effect, why should we penalize the contractor or the company for making an agreement which they have a perfect right to make ? What is the use of this clause 7 If we cannot by legislation in this House prevent that being done, I think we should oblige the contractor to make an affidavit before the subsidy is paid that he has not done so.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We could do that as a matter of regulation.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not know that the remedy suggested by my hon. friend would be as complete as the one mentioned a moment ago ; but perhaps the two might go together. The affidavit would be a very good thing, although my feeling to-day is that I have a great distrust in human nature ; but I would add to it the other proviso. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Haggart) says that what we are contending for is already provided for in the amendment of the hon.
Minister of Justice ; and so it is to a certain extent, because by this amendment we do legislate as to the contract of lease and hire of work. My hon. friend says by his amendment that the labourers shall be paid at such a rate, irrespective of any contract. It seems to me that we should take very great precautions in this ease. An affidavit to be furnished by the railway company before the subsidy is paid will certainly produce an excellent result; but railway contractors and companies are not always very scrupulous, and the man who makes the affidavit may consider that he has conformed to this clause, though he may not have done so. The three brothers who were despoiled of their just wage through the absence of the Minister of Labour, were paid, so the contractor represented, the equivalent of $5 per day. If we legislate between the lessors and lessees of work, I think we can go a little further, and provide that every agreement made in violation of this provision shall be null and void. If that had no other effect, it would have the effect, whether constitutional or not, of scaring the railway company, and I am not, like my hon. friend the Minister of Labour, against the workingman, but in his favour.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The suggestion which my hon. friend from West Toronto has made respecting the evidence which the contractor must give that he has complied with the conditions of his contract, is a regulation which would be effective, and if I were the Minister of Railways, I would be disposed to provide that such a regulation should be made part of the contract.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If it is a matter of regulation, it will rest with the government to provide such a regulation. I think it the sense of the House that it should' be provided.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Edward Frederick Clarke: I would take the liberty of asking the hon. Minister of Justice a question with respect to section 193. That section, as originally in the Bill, was amended at the request of the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean). The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) was good enough to insert an amendment providing connections with railway stations by local telephones. The matter is one in which the municipalities of Port Arthur and Fort William are very much interested, and the mayor of Fort William has written that he is in doubt as to the meaning of this clause, and he has taken some advice upon it. The opinion given him is that it does not affect municipal telephones already in existence. I took the liberty of consulting the hon. member for St. John (Hon. Mr. Blair) and he gave me the opinion that the rights of municipalities

now owning a telephone service were fully protected.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would be prepared to accept any opinion expressed by tlie ex-Minister of Railways and Canals oil a subject to which he has given so much consideration. I know of no one more competent to give an opinion in relation to the Bill. My own view is that the words ' whenever any municipality is carrying on operating and maintaining a telephone system ' would apply to any municipal system now in operation.


Mr. KENDALL.: By clause 211, provision is made to compel all trains to be equipped with certain safety appliances, but by section 212 power is given to the board to exempt railway companies from this obligation. The board is therefore given a power which, in my opinion, should be vested in parliament alone, namely, the power of deciding whether in any particular case any railway company shall be exempted from providing safety appliances. The board, however, might be allowed the power of extending from time to time the period within which these appliances must be applied, on good reason being shown for the delay.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Section 212 has been adopted, and if the hon. member proposes to move an amendment to it, he must first move that it be reconsidered by liie committee.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I move that the committee reconsider section 212.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Before this motion is adopted, 1 should like to thoroughly understand what my hon. friend lias in view. I do not feel disposed to allow any amendment at present to this Bill which has had so much consideration.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: The object of my amendment is to retain in the exclusive power of parliament the right to decide whether or not certain railways shall be exempted from using certain safety appliances.


John Graham Haggart: What does parliament know about the apparatus to be employed ? How can parliament tell anything about it ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: If parliament does not know, in all probability the board will not know anything about it. I would not lie content to delegate to any board the power to decide in such a matter. We can all understand what influence might be brought to bear on the board.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman means that the board might be influenced into making aii order permitting a company to postpone making these improvements ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I ask by my amendment that after the word ' section ' in clause Mr. CLARKE.
,212, all the words be struck out, and the following substituted. ' But may from time to time extend the period within which such appliances shall be used, on being furnished reasonable evidence by the railway company of its inability to comply with the law.' Instead therefore of giving this discretion to the board to exempt a company from providing safety apparatus, I would only give it discretion to extend the time within which the company must equip its road with such appliances.	[DOT]


John Graham Haggart: Parliament has declared that certain improvements shall be placed upon railways. Some of the railways have not got these improvements but are getting them made and having them put on as fast as possible. Parliament then gives the commissioners the power of deciding whether these railways are proceeding with the requisite despatch in equipping themselves with these improvements, and the hon. gentleman wants to take that power from the commissioners and vest it in parliament.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: If the hon. gentleman will read clause 212, he will see that the railway board is given the power to decide whether these safety improvements shall be applied at all.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am personally in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall), because it strikes me-as this discussion goes on I may be further enlightened-that section 212 is in exact conflict with section 211, and almost renders nugatory its provisions. We have spent a great deal of time in providing that certain things shall be done for the protection of the men working on the cars and for the protection of travellers also. Section 211 declares what shall be done and what appliances shall be provided. As I understand the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Breton, it is not what the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart). supposed, but it is of a. character that that hon. gentleman would favour. The amendment simply proposes that the board may have the power to extend the time for providing these appliances, if it thinks right to do so. But the section as it stands will give the board power practically to repeal section 211. I am opposed to that. Parliament, in section 211, declares that certain things are necessary for the safety of the public, of the railway employees and of passengers. That is for parliament to say. But, under section 212, the board may say that their opinion is better than ours, and so they may ' exempt the company from using upon its railway or any portion thereof, any of the appliances in the last preceding section mentioned, and may from time to time extend the period with which such appliances shall be used.' I do not think

that it should be for this board, with the I manifold duties that they have to perform, J to undertake the duties of parliament also, ' as they would be authorized to do under this section 212. I think the amendment should carry, because if it does not, we endow the board with power to enact the very opposite of what parliament has enacted.


William Findlay Maclean: I might point out that the brotherhoods among the railway employees who are interested in this legislation desire this amendment. We fought all this out before, and got these protective clauses inserted in the law in their interest. But now, after we have the principle admitted, there is this section to make nugatory all that has passed in the law. Certainly, railway men are dissatisfied with the Bill and wish amendments to be made on the line proposed by the hon. member for Cape Breton.
lion. Mr. HAGGART. Surely the hon. member (Mr. Kendall) leaves power in the board to make modifications of the provisions of section 211 ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: To extend the time only.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kendall) think that this amendment will make the clause more as desired by the railway employees than it is at present ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I certainly would think so.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: Under the present clause the railway company may be wholly exempt by the commission from the obligation to use these appliances.


William Findlay Maclean: Under the amendment, the railway company must give a good reason why it cannot provide the appliances. That is what the men want. They say : AVe want these protective appliances, but we are willing, if the company show that they cannot provide them in a reasonable time, that the time should be extended; but we want them to comply with the law. I think it is only fair that this protection should be afforded to the railway men. Similar protection is afforded under the railway law of the United States. It was fought out there, the companies were given a certain number of years to put in these safety appliances, and they have put them in. Congress gave an extension from year to year for a sufficient number of years to enable them to make the changes. I can tell the committee that the men who are mainly interested and for the safety of whose lives these provisions have been put in this Act think that the Act is worthless ns it is, and ask for this reasonable amendment.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It does seem to me that what the hon. member for Lincoln has
stated is quite true, that this clause 212 gives too broad a power to the commission. It authorizes them to ' exempt the company from using upon its railway, or any portion thereof, any appliances of the last preceding section mentioned.' The only condition being that ' the same can be allowed without danger to the public or to passengers or to employees of the company.'


William Alfred Galliher: I support the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Breton.
I think it must strike anybody who will read section 211 and 212 that the amendment is necessary. In the first place, section 211 explicitly provides that there shall be these appliances. That is a parliamentary Act. But section 211 provides that, notwithstanding that we have legislated that these appliances shall be used, this board may allow exceptions and modifications, if they are satisfied that life is not endangered. In other words, it puts tlie power of legislation in their hands. I have been asked by the railway men interested, to look into this matter ; and I have looked Into it, and am satisfied that what they are asking is reasonable and right. For my part I am prepared to support the amendment. All they ask is that the words after ' section ' be struck out and the following substituted :	' but may from
time to time extend the period within which such appliances shall be used '-that is, they do not want to be unreasonable in the matter. If it is a difficult task for the railway company to put in these appliances at once, or within a month, or within six months, let the time be extended, so long as the railway company can satisfy the commission that the delay is necessary. This is no hardship upon the railway companies, while it provides that section 211 shall be carried out, and the best possible appliances provided on our railways.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am afraid that if we adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Kendall) the result will be that improved appliances may be made by 1906 that cannot be used on these cars unless parliament is again applied to, and special provision is made. You have to leave some latitude with the board, but if the desire is to take away the right to exempt the company from the legal obligation to use these appliances, I would suggest an amendment that would meet that case.
The board may, upon application order that any apparatus or appliance specified in such order shall, when used upon the train in the manner and under circumstances in such order specified, he deemed a sufficient compliance with tihe provisions of the last preceding section

The hoard must determine the extent to which the law has been complied with.
-hut the board shall not, by such order, allow any exception to, or modification of, the requirements of such section unless fully satis-

fied that the same can be allowed without danger to the public, or to passengers, or to the employees of the company.


Robert Laird Borden: That throws a very heavy responsibility upon the board.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It does, it throws upon the hoard the responsibility of determining what ought to be done to protect the public against accidents in the way of providing ears and engines with proper equipments. Then we might amend the other part of the section. The section now reads :
And the board may, by general regulation, or in any particular cias-e, on good cause shown, exempt the company from using upon its railway, or any portion thereof, any of the appliances in the last preceding section mentioned, and may from time to time extend the period within which such appliances shall be used.
The hon. gentleman is afraid that the board may have it in its power to exempt a company from using any appliances at all. I would suggest that we modify that section so as to leave out all the words between ' exempt ' and ' mentioned.' So the section will read in this way :
The board may, by general regulation, or in any particular case, on good cause shown, from time to time extend the period within which such appliances shall be used.
Taking from the board the right to exempt the company from using the appliances, and giving them merely time to extend tlie period within which -the appliances should be used.


Hon.   A@: That is intended to apply to construction trains.


The .MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: And small railways.


John Graham Haggart: But the clause as framed at present gives power where it is not necessary to use them on these particular trains.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is the object of the clause.


Andrew B. Ingram: These are the very trains they should be used on. Only the other day, on the Lake Erie and Detroit Railway, a gravel train rau into another one and killed some persons because they had not the proper attachments. I noticed in the evidence taken in the inquiry that it was stated that it was necessary to have these attachments on that class of trains. They are the very class of trains they should be on. I regret to say that on most railways they are not on.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Under the amendment I suggest, there would be no power to exempt any company from the use of these appliances, but the board would have the right to extend the delay within which the appliances may be used.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am afraid the words lie is leaving in and which the hon. member for Cape Breton wants left out, would accomplish what we wish to avoid.
The section now says :
The board shaill not by such order allow- any exception bo or modification of the requirements of such section

The member for Cape Breton wants it to stop there, but the minister says go on and add :
-unless fully satisfied that the same may be allowed without danger to the public.
Does it not mean that the board may allow any exception or modification if fully satisfied that the same may be allowed'without danger to the public ?
The A1INISTER OF JUSTICE. Supposing there are improvements which will enable us to do away with some of the appliances mentioned in the preceding section, and that the board of commissioners come to the conclusion that the use of these new appliances may exempt the company from the necessity of using all other appliances that are provided for, surely they must not be compelled to come to parliament every time they want to use new appliances on a railway.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They must use better appliances than are mentioned here, for instance, outside ladders on the sides of each car. Would you say that the board ought not to have power to say that any other ladder will do instead of the one specified here ? This section would allow them to say that any other ladder could be used.


The AIINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I suggest that the clause be made to read this way :
The board may, upon application from time to time, order that any apparatus or appliance specified in such order shall, w-hen used upon the train in the manner and under circumstances in such order specified, be deemed sufficient compliance with the provisions of the last preceding section, but the board shall not, by such order, allow any exception to or modification of the requirements of such section.
Strike out all these words :
Unless fully satisfied that the same can be allowed without danger to the public, or to passengers or employees of the company.
And then substitute :
But the board may by general regulation, or in any particular case on good cause shown from time to time c-xitend the period within which such appliance shall he used.
Section as amended, agreed to.
On section 211,


Andrew B. Ingram: That subsection itwo of section 211 be reconsidered.
tie said : I understand that it has been proposed that the words ' in Canada ' in

the first line of subsection 2 of section 211 be struck out.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There Is surely no objection to that.


Andrew B. Ingram: Subsection 2 reads as
follows :
All box freight oars built in Canada, for use on Canadian railways, after the passing of this Act, shall be provided with the following attachments, &e.
Mi'. INGRAM. Tlyey might bring in cars from the United States and evade the Act.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We oblige our people to manufacture cars in Canada which will comply with the conditions of this section, but we do not oblige people who manufacture cars on the other side to comply with them. Cars may come from the other side without these attachments and be used in Canada.


Andrew B. Ingram: The object of this amendment is to make sure that the section shall apply to cars built in the United States for use on Canadian railways. We know that tlie railway companies have not been able at times to get a sufficient number of cars in Canadian shops and that they are obliged to give orders to American manufacturers. If they are to be compelled to place these attachments on cars built in American shops and intended for use on Canadian railways then it will be necessary to strike out the words ' in Canada ' in the first line of this subsection.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: As far as I am concerned I think this Bill has been so thoroughly discussed when it was formerly before the House that I cannot see my way to agreeing to any amendment such as that which has been proposed.


Andrew B. Ingram: All I have to say to the lion. Minister of Justice is that he,will have to light the people who do want it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the objection, may
I ask ? There has been a great dearth of cars of all kinds and the railway companies in Canada have been obliged to procure cars from the other side. As I understand, the object of the amendment is that these cars must be equipped as is contemplated under section 211. Is there anything unreasonable in that ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is nothing unreasonable in it except that the company would be required to procure a lot of cars that could not he used in Canada. If they could not get sufficient cars in Canada they would buy these cars elsewhere and they could not use them because they might not be equipped according to this section.


Andrew B. Ingram: Why should they not comply with the laws of Canada ? Why should hot the company be compelled to specify in the contract which they make for cars to be built on the other side that they shall have these attachments ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is a great diversity of opinion about the value of these attachments. I understand that the Master Car Builders' Association have passed a resolution absolutely opposed to their adoption.


Andrew B. Ingram: There is no Master Car Builders' Association that has passed any such resolution, and any person who says that there is does not know what he. is talking about. They simply have not approved of them, that is all, but they have not passed any resolution against them. Why should not the companies procuring these cars comply with the conditions laid down in this Act ? Many of the companies are building cars to comply with the conditions laid down in the Act. Who will pretend to say that the master mechanics are violating the rules of the Master Car Builders' Association ? It is simply idle rot to make such a statement and any man who has any knowledge of this question knows perfectly well that this is the proper course to adopt.


William Findlay Maclean: I will point out to the lion. Minister of Justice that we have put this provision into the Bill in order to protect tlie men working on the cars. By allowing these two words to remain in the subsection an evasion is permitted in the case of a large number .of cars and all we want to do is to carry out the law to its fullest extent and make it apply to cars built in the United States as well as to cars built in Canada. We have adopted the principle which is- now in the Bill and we say that this principle should apply to all cars, and I think that when the object is pointed out to the hon. minister he will consent to striking these words out.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Subsection 2 provides that :
All box freight oars built in Canada, for use on Canadian railways, after the passing of this Act. shall be provided with the following attachments.
These attachments are specified in the subsection which follows. Then, the paragraph at the bottom of the page provides that :
All cars built prior to the passing of this Act shall be fitted with such attachments on or before the 31st day of December, 1905.
There is an obligation imposed upon the companies to fit all cars which are built and in existence at the present time with these attachments. There is an obligation on the Canadian manufacturer as well as upon the

railway company to attach the appliances to ears that are now being built in Canada. If the words ' in Canada ' are not struck out the company may bring in as many cars as they please that may be built six months or a year from now in the United States, and these cars need not be equipped as the Canadian cars are. If the minister will give the objection raised by the men careful consideration he will see that it is reasonable.


Mr. BARKER.: As the section stands now, it simply means that a Canadian railway company ordering cars from the United States can order cars differently equipped from those which they could order in Canada. I do not see what objection there can be in striking out these two words.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Read the section with these words left out.


Samuel Barker: The words ' built for use ' would not be carried so far as to mean cars belonging to United States companies.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In legislating it is not a question of how far you would carry it, but of what the words mean.


Samuel Barker: You must give a reasonable interpretation to them.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They are not built for use on Canadian railways, but on American railways.


Andrew George Blair: They are built for use everywhere.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If you strike out the words ' use on ' and ' in Canada,' you will get it right.


Andrew George Blair: The' suggestion of the hon. member for Hamilton would not be of any value, because these cars are often in an emergency purchased as already manufactured, and not built expressly for any Canadian company at all. The difficulty is that you are undertaking to legislate to cover every imaginary case. You have required that the box-cars used on Canadian railways shall have these appliances, but, not satisfied with that, you want to have a provision that all cars that are built hereafter must necessarily have these appliances. I do not see any necessity for that. You are only creating embarrassment and leaving loop-'holes which would not otherwise exist.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does not the hon. gentleman think it would be advisable to have these cars that are operated in Canada equipped, as far as possible, with the same sort of equipment ?	.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: How can you do it ?


Andrew George Blair: Half the cars used on Canadian railways come from the United States and are used there in conformity with their laws, which do not require some of these appliances you are insisting upon.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Why should y0U want to add to the difficulty of exchange of traffic and the carrying on of business, because there are a certain number of people who insist upon certain protection, while an equally large body of railway peojile say it is not at all necessary ? These things seem to be carried rather too far, and you are liable to embarrass the business of the country to an extent which you do not now appreciate.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How would it do to say ' all box freight cars built for Canadian railways ?' Will not that meet the objection ?


William Findlay Maclean: If a railway company wants 100 box-cars and orders them in Canada, they must have these attachments, but if it orders them in the United States, they need not have these attachments, and so would cost less. If you do not change this section, you are going to put the Canadian car builders at a disadvantage.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It seems to me that there is a real difficulty in connection with this section which it is worth considering. The section now is applicable to cars built in Canada, and the railway company might acquire cars in the United States which may not be so equipped. Why not say ' all box freight cars purchased by the company after the passing of this Act shall be provided,' &c. ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I think that would do.


Andrew B. Ingram: You must not forget that railway companies lease a lot of box-cars.


Andrew George Blair: A railway company in a sort of way leases all the box-cars on its road belonging to other railways, because they pay so much a day for them while they are in their possession, and consequently there might be trouble if you use the expression ' lease.'


Andrew B. Ingram: The ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) used the argument that we are endeavouring to pass a law here which conflicts with the laws of the United States. Let me point out that the Michigan Central Railway operating in Canada interchange more American cars than any other railway in Canada in proportion to its mileage, and they are building their cars as required by this Act. Why do they go to that extra expense if the Master Car Builders' Association is correct ?


Andrew George Blair: There are probably various reasons.


Andrew B. Ingram: That company is not eager to spend money unnecessarily, but they find that it is to their interest to have these attachments, and they are interchanging with American railroads all the time handling from forty to seventy cars on a train largely of American freight passing through this country, and yet they find no hardship; in providing these appliances. Let me ask any hon. gentleman of this House

to apply his own reasoning to the matter. When he is passing along on a passenger train and sees long freight trains on the sidings, let me ask him whether he vou'd pass between the cars in order to get up on top or whether he would not get up on a ladder if there was a ladder there for him to use ? Would not common sense tell any man that that is the safest way if The men, knowing this, are asking for this protection. The reason I feel so strongly cn this question is that I speak from experience. I have climbed on the cars myself hundreds of times, in all hours of the day and night, and in all kinds of weather ; and knowing what I say to be the case, I cannot see why the provision should be refused when we apply a little common sense to the ijiatter.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have drafted an amendment which I think will meet the real difficulty ; but it is now six o'clock, and I will endeavour to have that amendment ready by eight o'clock.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved to amend subsection 2 of section 211 by inserting the words ' all box freight cars of the company built after the passing of this Act shall be equipped with.'
Section, as amended, agreed to.


Hugh Guthrie: I move that the committee reconsider section 242. My object is to move an amendment to section 242. The amendment I intend moving is to add the following as subsection four
Notwithstanding anything in any public or special Act heretofore passed, or in the rules or by-laws of any railway company, or in the rules or by-laws of any insurance or provident society or association of railway employees formed under the authority of any Act heretofore passed, no contract or agreement made or entered into by a workman, employee or servant of any railway company, and no rule or by-law of any society or association as aforesaid. shall be a bar or constitute any defence to an action against such railway company by such workman, employee or servant, for the recovery of compensation or damages for personal injury to him, or, in case the injury results in death, to an action by the personal representatives of such workman, employee or servant-
(a.) unless for such workman, employee or servant entering into such contract or agreement, or becoming a member of such insurance or provident society, there was other consideration than that of his being taken into, or continued in the employment of the railway company ;
(b.) unless such other consideration is, in the opinion of the court or judge before whom such action is tried, ample and adequate ; nor
fc.) unless, in the opinion of the court or judge, such contract or agreement, in view of
su'ch other consideration, was not on the part of the workman, employee or servant, improvident, but was just and reasonable ; and the burden of proof with respect to such other consideration, and of its being ample and adequate, and that the contract was just and reasonable, and was not improvident, shall in all cases rest upon the railway company.
That clause is taken from the Ontario Act known as the Workmen's Compensation Act. A similar Act is in force in several of the other provinces. The difficulty I seek to remedy is this :	Some railway companies, by means of special legislation or special clauses incorporated in their charter, have been able to form insurance or provident society, and by means of a summary contribution to the funds of these societies, they are able to have a great deal to say in their management and the formation of rules to govern them. In the case of one of these companies, the Grand Trunk Railway, which employs about 25,000 men, it has formed such a society, under the authority of an Act passed by this parliament in 1874, and amended in 1878, giving it power to form a provident society and conduct the business of accident and life insurance. No one objects to their doing so, hut the difficulty is that provision is made in the rules of the society for the immunity of the railway company, on the payment of a small fee per head according to the number of members, from every liability in the case of accident. In the Grand Trunk Railway provident society, there is a rule to this effect, rule number 15, which reads as follows :
In consideration of the subscription of the Grand Trunk Railway to the society, no member thereof or his representative shall have any claim upon the company for compensation on account of injury or deaths from accident.
The men are charged fairly high rates for the small insurance they get. They are charged 50, CO, 75 and 80 cents per month for an insurance, which in many cases is only $250. The. premium is much higher than is charged for a much larger amount of insurance in other benevolent and friendly institutions. It has been proved in a court of law that benefit associations doing business in Ontario to-day, give, for a lower rate, insurance of a thousand dollars, instead of $250, and the same weekly benefits in the case of sickness or injury. For many years this rule lay dormant. The Grand Trunk Railway never set it up in an action for damages, but in later years it has been set up in such actions almost invariably. In Ontario the only decision we have by a judge of tbe Superior Court is the decision of the trial judge in the case of Holden against the'Grand Trunk Railway, which was tried at Hamilton. In that case the Grand Trunk Railway set up rule fifteen as a defence for the action, and the trial judge upheld the defence. That case went to the court of appeals, but unfortunately it was not there decided on the point I hav# men-

tioned, but the decision of the court was based on the question of contributory negligence. It has been decided, however, in the Superior Court in the case of Grenier against the Queen-a case arising out of an accident on the Intercolonial Railway where a similar rule is in force-that that rule is binding on the workman and his representatives.
Now, this is in direct antagonism to all modern legislation on the subject of master and servant. Other corporations, large enl-ployers of labour, are bound by the Workmen's Compensation Act in Ontario and similar Acts in other provinces. They cannot escape their common law liability, unless they do so on the giving of some consideration other than the fact of the employment. If they wish to secure themselves, it is open to them to take out accident policies in the various insurance companies doing that line of business. So, I submit, it should be with the Grand Trunk Railway Company or other companies having such a rule as this. Now, it has been stated that this amendment in a manner deals with the question of civil rights, which is ultra vires of this parliament. But, I think that proposition may well be doubted. The only decision we have upon the subject has upheld it. The Ontario law was pleaded in the case of Holden vs. The Grand Trunk, but the trial judge said : No, the rule is binding ; it is passed under the authority of Dominion legislation in 1874 and 1878 ; the Grand Trunk Railway Company is a Dominion corporation. And so the rule was upheld, notwithstanding the Workmen's Compensation Act in the province of Ontario. Now, I submit that no harm can be done to any one by engrafting that legislation upon the Dominion statutes. It will be a long time before a railroad workman who has lost an arm or a leg, or before the widow of a railroad workman who has been killed in an accident on the road, can go to the court of Appeal or the Privy Council to find out whether that statute in Ontario is binding upon the railroad companies or not. You can remove all doubts by placing that legislation in the Dominion Railway Act. I bring it up here because the Bill that I introduced early in the session, though it was read a first and a second time and passed the Railway Committee almost unanimously, is very little likely to be reached this session. But, as it was a Bill to amend the Railway Act, I think this is the proper pdace, if it becomes law, to introduce it in the Railway Act as an amendment to section 242. These are briefly the facts, and I would ask leave to reconsider that section with a view to introducing that amendment to subsection 4.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Speaking for myself,
I quite agree with the amendment of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Gutlii#e). In the Railway Committee I sup-Mr. GUTHRIE:
ported him in the Bill he introduced, because I think, we shall be allowing an inconsistent and wrong state of law to exist if we do not, for the reasons the hon. gentleman has so well explained, pass this legislation as a part of the Dominion law respecting railways. If the law is not amended as contended for by the hon. gentleman, we may have a case like this arising in Ontario, or in any other province where a law similar to the Workmen's Compensation Act of Ontario is in force: A man may have two sons, one working for a railway company chartered by the Dominion, and another for a manufacturer, and both injured by the same sort of negligence on the part of their fellow employees ; one son will be able to get damage from his employer and the other not able to do so because his employer is the Grand Trunk Railway Company. It does not seem that there can be anything harsh against the Grand Trunk Railway Company or any other railway company-for this applies to all-to provide fair and reasonable protection to the employee. They can still escape liability if they make a compact With the workman based upon a consideration other than the fact of their employing him ; and, in passing, I may say, that I think that is no consideration at all, for no railway company will pay a man more than the services he renders are wortlij so that all he gets is paid for wages and there is nothing left to be regarded as a consideration for anything else. But, if they employ him and give any other consideration than the employment and* if in the opinion of the court or judge before whom such action is tried, ample and adequate ; or if, in the opinion of the court or judge, such contract or agreement, in view of such other consideration, was not on the part of the workman, employee or servant, improvident, but was just and reasonable, the railway company can still escape liability for the injuries even under the amendment my hon. friend proposes. So, there is no hardship to the railway company in enacting this amendment. And, as the railway committee, by a very large majority, declared that it approved this legislation and practically there is a report to the House to that effect.
I suppose we need not take much time in arguing that it ought to pass the House in this form.


Andrew George Blair: The question fairly arises whether or not, supposing the committee to agree entirely that it would be desirable that some legislation of this kind should pass-if we have the authority to pass it in this parliament-it is necessary to pass this amendment, or whether all that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) is contending for is not already provided for in the Bill as it stands to-day. I refer to section 242, subsection 3. If hon. gentlemen will read this carefully, they will see that it recognizes that legislation touching relief

from liability for misfeasance or for a tort of any kind wbieli may be sought to be enforced by an employee of the company is governed entirely by the provision of the legislation of the province in which the cause of action is alleged to have arisen. This subsection reads :
No Inspection had under this Act, and nothing in this Act contained

Let me call attention to this- nothing in this Act contained
-and nothing done or ordered or omitted to bo done or ordered, under or by virtue of the provisions of this Acit, shall relieve, or be'construed to relieve, any company of or from any liability or responsibiiliity resting upon it by law, either towards Bis 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, mailfeasanice 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.
Now, if I correctly interpret this clause- and it appears to be very clear-it provides that if the law of the province in which the cause of accident is alleged to have arisen, provides that the employee is not bound by any contract under which he contracts the company out of liability, that condition of things is recognized and the parties are placed in exactly the same position las respects their rights as if we were, five or six times over, to re-enact what the hon. gentleman (Mr.Guthrie) is asking us to sanction. If he will take the trouble to read this clause he will agree with me that it is not only susceptible of, but it must necessarily bear, that meaning*


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot read that section as the ex-Minister of Railways reads it. It says :
No inspection had under this Act, and nothing in this Act contained

Well, there is nothing in this Act at all bearing on the subject. The difficulty does not arise under this Act, but under a special Act obtained by the Gyaud Trunk Railway Company from this parliament in 1874, and the subsequent Act of a private company obtained in 1878. There is nothing in this Act touching upon th<* subject at all.


Andrew George Blair: The hon. gentleman has not read the whole :
-and nothing done, or ordered, or omitted to he done or ordered.
Now it must be under this Act that the railways are -operated, it is under the authority of this Act that the company does its business, they cannot do business otherwise. It is not a corporate organization except by virtue of the provisions which are contained in this Act. And when the language is as particular as this :
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.
You cannot have broader language than that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This same legislation existed at the time Holden's case was tried, the case the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) referred to, and where the decision of the trial judge went to the court of appeal, but was not there decided because the court passed off on to another question. This Railway Act as it existed then had exactly the same words which he ex-Minister of Railways and Canals relies on, lint that did not save Holden, that did not cause the trial judge to decide in his favour.


Hugh Guthrie: As I read it, the whole section is confined to anything done under the provisions of that Act, or ordered to be done under that Act, or omitted which should be under this Act. Now the defence submitted by the Grand Trunk Railway made this plea :
These defendants further submit that the said Grand Trunk Railway Insurance and Provident Society being a society authorized by the statutes of the Dominion of Canada and such rules amd by-laws being passed pursuant to such statutes, there was no power in the legislature of the province of Ontario to authorize any court or judge to take away the defence which said statutes, by-laws and rules give to these defendants, and any legislation to the contrary would be beyond the powers of the province as affecting these defendants.
Now that has been upheld.


Andrew George Blair: We are not overriding that or attempting to do so.


Hugh Guthrie: If we put that amendment in this Bill that defence will not be permissible, because the effect of tbe amendment is that they shall not be permitted to defend on that ground.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is the difference between the General Railway Act and this section 242 ? There is none. If there be no difference between the old Act and the present one, and if these eases occurred under the same section, what power would they have now beyond what they had at the time the trial took place ?


Andrew George Blair: I am not familiar with the case already referred to, but my hon. friend is apparently relying upon a special Act of the company whose employee had brought the action and who is raising this defence, and it was by virtue of the provisions of that special Act. Am I right?


Hugh Guthrie: Not exactly. The special Act authorizes the railway company to form

a provident society, and to formulate rules for the government of the society. Now my own opinion is, if I may venture an opinion in face of the decision of the trial judge, that that rule on appeal would not be upheld. But the difficulty is that you cannot get any one to fight a railway company and go to appeal. Therefore, to settle all these doubts and to make the matter perfectly plain, I do not know a shorter cut than by passing this amendment. It will clear the atmosphere, and people will know where they are. I do not believe an appellate court would uphold that decision. It was upheld under somewhat different circumstances in the Intercolonial Railway case.	.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The circumstances were not the same.


Hugh Guthrie: The object of the amendment is to set these doubts at rest, and to have a clear statement of what the law is.


Andrew George Blair: As the hon. gentleman is now stating the matter-I do not profess to be familiar with the Act or the circumstances arising out of the case, or with the decision of the judge. But he is asking us now to incorporate a provision in this Bill which will change to some extent the provisions of the special Act with which this Bill has nothing whatever to do. Parliament has chosen to grant a special Act to a company, as it did to the Grand Trunk Railway Company. We have not taken away from any of these companies any special privileges or powers that were granted in those Acts. If .we did that an appeal would be a proper thing. My hon. friend proposes by a general provision in respect to a particular Act what we have not done in respect of any Act in any clause of this Bill.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood the hon. member for Wellington to say that the last Act affecting this case was passed in 187S. I know something of the history of this Grand Trunk Provident Insurance Society. I know that under the law of the province of Ontario, an Act was passed excluding the Grand Trunk Railway Company from the operation of the Workmen's Compensation for Injuries Act, by reason of the Grand Trunk Railway Company having an insurance and provident society for their railway employees. A strong fight occurred in the legislature in 1887. The, Grand Trunk Railway took the ground that its employees preferred the benefits of the insurance society rather than the benefits of the Compensation for Injuries Act. As a result of the fight between the employees and the company, the Ontario government issued a lot of questions which they circulated privately to the railway employees of the Grand Trunk Railway asking them whether they would prefer being excluded from the benefits of the Mr. GUTHRIE.
Compensation for Injuries Act and to retain their position in the society ; and I believe over 70 per cent of them answered that while they had no objections to the Provident Insurance Society, at the same time they wanted the benefit of the Compensation for Injuries Act. They said they paid for their insurance, and they felt that they had no right to be deprived of the benefits of the Compensation for Injuries Act. As a result of these answers, the government wiped out the section which excluded the Grand Trunk Railway from the provisions of the Compensation for Injuries Act, and that company came under the provisions of that Act in the province of Ontario. Now I am surprised, to find that the courts are holding that because employees are members of the Provident and Insurance Society they cut themselves out of any benefits that might come to them by reason of the Ontario Compensation for Injuries Act, in case of accident. I think something ought to be done to make it perfectly clear that, though they belong to the insurance society and pay for that privilege, they are not thereby deprived of the right to damages in case of accident.


Mr. LENNOX.: I hope the committee will adopt this provision moved by the member for South Wellington. The ex-Minister of Railways says that this is a proposal to alter a special Act. Well, in some respects, probably it is, but I do not understand that the hon. gentleman who proposes the amendment exactly shares in that view, and I do not think it is the fairest way to look at the matter. The ease presented by the hon. gentleman who proposes the amendment is, that it may be quite possible that the special Act granted to a. railway company does not justify the position that the railway company takes, ljut, on the other hand, the railway company does see fit to place upon the Act a certain interpretation, and that interpretation having been placed pai it by the railway company and the decision of the court, standing as it is in the province of Ontario, it is impossible for any person to get at what may be the true interpretation of the statute until he carries it to the ultimate court of appeal. The hon. gentleman points out that it is important that the class of people who invoke the provision of the law for their benefit in a matter of this kind shall not be handicapped by the difficulty of having to carry their case to the $ourt of appeal ; in other words, that the widow and children of deceased employees of the railway companies are not in a position to fight the railway companies. The hon. member asks not for the repeal of the special Act under which the railway company is operating, but for such an amendment as will, in effect, be a declaration of the rights of the parties. That is what it amounts to. He brings in an amendment declaring that the railway companies shall

not have power to contract themselves out of liability unless the contract is founded upon some new construction, independently of the mere fact of admitting a person to the service of the railway company, because it has been well remarked from my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) that no just consideration arises out of the mere circumstance of employment; because it is supposed that the employee gives value for every dollar that he gets from the company. We declare the presumed intention of parliament, when it gave the right to the company to grant insurance and to make insurance regulations, namely : that it should not have the power to contract itself out of liability unless it could show that there is some consideration for the contract beyond the mere matter of admitting the employee into the service of the company. In addition to that the hon. gentleman who introduces the amendment, very properly provides that the contract shall be in force only in so far as it is declared by a judge' who tries the case to be just and reasonable. This is no new system of legislation. It is one that is well recognized in various statutes in the province of Ontario, and I apprehend in the statutes of other provinces as well. The hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), referred to subsection 3 of section 242s and argues, with his usual force and clearness, that there is probably a sufficient safeguard in this section. I venture, with all deference, to submit that the subsection in no way affects the question. It is not an enabling provision at all. It is a mere negative provision. It provides no remedy. It merely provides that:
No inspection had under this Aeit, 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.
In other words, it leaves the law as it was before. But, if any additional argument is required, I wish to refer the hon. gentleman who has charge of this Bill, at the present time, (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) to this fact, to be borne in mind, that although we are dealing with a new statute, we are dealing with an old provision. The same provision appeared word for word in the statute of 1888, the General Railway Act; therefore, this provision was in force at the time these difficulties arose, and at the time these matters were brought before the court. I may say, though this is not a matter of great importance, only as illustrating the position that I take, that I have also had personal experience of the matter. I have not been so unwise, I admit, as to bring an action, under such circumstances, because I realized that unless one has a pot of money it is impossible to follow these railway companies from court to court, but I held a brief in 256	'
a case which came up for trial at Brampton after the decision in the case of Holden vs. the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and the learned judge who was sitting there declined to hear the case. He, of course, gave us a suggestion that it was not wise to press the matter, and in effect told me that he would not try the case until he had heard tlie ultimate result In the case of Holden vs. the Grand Trunk Railway Company. The hon. member who proposes this amendment has explained that that case was not decided in appeal upon this question, but on another point-showing that the judges regarded it as a question of difficulty, and, therefore, they will not decide this question finally by way of appeal until they are driven to it. The fact that it is a matter of difficulty and that it is a questionable point, ought to be sufficient, I submit, to induce this committee, having regard to the necessity, the vital importance it is to the widows and children of a deserving class of our people who are not able to protect themselves in all cases, to accept this amendment. I do not often have the pleasure of supporting an hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, but I have great pleasure in doing so upon this occasion.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I happened to know something about the case of Grenier vs. the Queen, as I was engaged on that case myself, and I may say that that case did not turn in any way upon the point that is now before the committee. The case was one that arose in the province of Quebec as the result of an accident on the Intercolonial Railway at Fraserville, and the point to be determined there was as to whether or not the action that the widow brought for damages as the result of the death of her husband was what is called a representative action or an independent action ; that is as to whether this action came to her in her character of a widow independent of her husband or whether the action was one which came to her because she was the widow of the deceased. The judge held that the action of the widow was an independent action, and on appeal to the Supreme Court it was unanimously held that it was a representative action, that the widow was bound by the act of her husband, but in no way was the question involved here dealt with in that case.


Hugh Guthrie: I read that case only last week and it is distinctly held that the rule is binding.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It was held that Lord Campbell's Act applied and that the husband could legally contract out of his liability, but the question at issue in that case was a question as to the nature or character of the action. My hon. friend says that that point was involved in the


REVISED EDITION1 COMMON'S
[Stage Direction]
case of Holden vs. the Grand Trunk Railway. I have had occasion to look into the law in the province of Ontario, and into the cases, and 1 find that half a dozen cases have been tried. In the case of Farmer vs. the Grand Trunk Railway Company in the common pleas division before Galt, McMahon and Rose the point was formally decided there.
Hugh Guthrie: That was before the Workmens' Compensation for Injuries Act was passed.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend has got me at a disadvantage in this respect when he talks about these things; I have only to rely on the law and I find it referred to in this judgment.


Hugh Guthrie: What year ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In 1891 the case of Lydia Farmer vs. the Grand Trunk Railway Company. Here is the holding of the court:
Held, that the action was not maintainable. The plaintiff was paid $250 by a benefit insurance society in connection with the railway- though a distinct organization, ,of which deceased wais a member. The plaintiff gave a receipt stating that the railway company was relieved of all liability. The deceased's certificate did nat profess to be an insurance against acidenits, and the railway company wore no party to the receipt :
Held, that the receipt formed no bar to the action against the defendants ; nor was there any right to deduct the amount received from the benefit society from the sum the plaintiff *was entitled to as damages.


Hugh Guthrie: It was a question of release.
-Mr. LENNOX. In 1891 the Ontario Act against contracting out of liabilities had not been passed.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Workmen's Compensation Act was referred to. However, my point is made out by hon. gentlemen who are arguing the other way. The Workmen's Compensation Act regulates the matter, and it is only in so far as that Act prevents contracting out that it is not possible to do it. This is a mere matter affecting the right to claim damages arising out of an accident within the limits of a province; it is a mere matter of civil rights in the province.


Andrew B. Ingram: Would not the special Act of the Grand Trunk Railway have something to do with it ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No. I think it is absolutely unnecessary. In so far as legislation of that sort is of any use, this Act provides that nothing contained therein shall operate against any claim that may arise under the civil law of a province.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 


Andrew B. Ingram: Perhaps in the case quoted, the employee was guilty of contributory negligence.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: And that very point of contributory negligence shows the absurdity of the position we are led into. In our province contributory negligence is no defence at all to an action for damages.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is in Ontario.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is in Ontario, and that very thing shows that these cases must be guided according to the laws of each province. In the province of Quebec you cannot Siet up the doctrine of contributory negligence. In the case of Grenier vs. the Queen it was a clear -case of contributory negligence, but w,e happened to get the law of our province applied to it under civil rights, and as a result the Crown escaped.


Haughton Lennox: I quite understand what the Minister of Justice says in reference to this matter being to a certain extent controlled by Ontario legislation, but the difficulty is that this parliament has granted a certain statute to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and the Grand Trunk Railway Company are setting that up as a reason wliy they should not be liable. What is asked by this amendment is that you shall so control and declare the meaning of that statute, that it shall not hereafter prevail as a defence. I feel that if the amendment were incorporated in this Bill it would be very beneficial and it would work no Injury, even if it is not necessary in every aspect of the case as the bon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) alleges.


Hugh Guthrie: The case referred to by the Minister of Justice does not deeide the point at all. I recollect that case very well, and it turned on the question as to whether or not there was a release given by the receipt for the insurance. The rule in that case was not pleaded by the Grand Trunk Railway. It is only within the last few years that the rule has been pleaded at all. The decision is simply this :	That as this
privilege is extended to the Grand Trunk Railway Company under an Act of this parliament to a corporation incorporated under the law of this parliament; the Workmen's Compensation Act of Ontario does not apply to it. That has been held in Holden vs. the Grand Trunk Railway, and that is the only decision we have.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Where is the decision in Holden reported ?


Hugh Guthrie: It Lb not reported, but it is a well known case among the members of the Ontario bar; so well known that it has been followed on several occasions by trial judges. That being the case, if the contention of the Minister of Justice is cor-

rect that the Ontario law does govern, his contention is in direct antagonism to that decision and no harm can come to any railway company by putting that clause in this Bill and making sure of it. If we have it wrong in the province, we will have it right in the Dominion, and vice versa. I submit that no injury can be done to any railway company exercising these rights. I believe the only other company having such a privilege is the Algoma Central; the Intercolonial Railway makes use of it, but that comes in under another Act and will not be affected by this clause.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: 
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I entertain no doubt that we have no power to do anything of the sort. If we have the power to regulate this question of contract, and we decide that an employee cannot contract out with his employer, we have also power to enact that the doctrine of common employment or contributory negligence shall be applicable to the whole Dominion of Canada, notwithstanding the law of the province of Quebec. We have as much right to do the one thing as the other. If you want to take responsibility, that is for the committee to decide ; but it must be done against my formally expressed opinion on the subject. What is the result ? Where is this going to lead to ? In whose interest is this being done ? I speak from my knowledge of insurance companies, when I say that both the Intercolonial and the Grand Trunk systems contribute large amounts each year to what they call their insurance funds. We are called on to vote each year $6,000 to a fund for the insurance of the employees of the Intercolonial Railway.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many men are affected by it ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I cannot tell how many, but all the employees. Pro-

bably 1,200 or 1,500 men belong to the association. In addition, each member contributes a small sum. The result is that when an accident happens the injured man gets the benefit, not only of the contributions of his fellow workmen but of the contribution by parliament. The same thing is done by the Grand Trunk Railway Company. They also contribute each year a large sum to the insurance fund of their employees, and each employee also contributes. The reason why the company and the government contribute to this fund is that it enables them to relieve themselves of liability for accidents if accidents occur. That is the determining cause. But if we are going to interfere and say by legislation that they shall not derive any benefit from that contribution or obtain any relief from liability as a result of it, we might as well ask what is the use of that contribution ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Does any part of this $6,000 go to pay doctors' fees 1


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then it is evident that instead of contributing $5,000 or $6,000 for the benefit of the employees, the management of the Intercolonial are contributing for the payment of doctors in case of accidents, because they want to relie've themselves of liability and want to have medical witnesses.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Is not the medical assistance for the benefit of the employees ?


Andrew George Blair: My hon. friend is quite in error in saying that medical men are employed in order that there may be medical witnesses in the interest of the railway. The doctors are chosen, named and employed by the employees themselves. The Intercolonial Railway authorities do not, under any circumstances, select any of the physicians who are employed.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not disupute that, but I think the hon. member will bear me out in saying that a portion of this fund goes to the payment of these doctors.


Andrew George Blair: Certainly, because they employ the doctors.


Andrew B. Ingram: And part of their duties is, in case of accidents along the line of railway, to be present on the spot to assist in relieving the injured, and in case of actions for damages, to be present to give evidence.


Andrew George Blair: Not at all.


Andrew B. Ingram: I fancy that is the object of the Grand Trunk Company. They manipulate the officials who manage the provident insurance societies, and doctors are em. ployed on the different divisions ; and, in case of accident, these are the doctors who are sent to look after the people who are injured, and also to be in a position to give Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
evidence as to whether the company was responsible for the accident or not. When accidents occur on the railways, I am sorry to say, that you can get expert medical evidence, either for the plaintiff or the defendant, for which the doctors are sometimes paid large sums. You can almost prove anything you want to prove nowadays by medical testimony. You can prove that the accident was a serious one and that the company should pay large damages ; or you can prove the contrary. So I say it is to the interest of the company to have this fund, and if they can induce the employees to contribute towards it, so much the better for the company ; but I repudiate the idea that these large sums are contributed by the company for the benefit of the employees. I myself was compelled to sign a contract on the Grand Trunk Railway against my wishes, because I thought I was sufficiently insured and to the limit of what I could afford to pay, as hundreds of other employees are. Because they are employed by the Grand Trunk Railway they are compelled to insure whether they are amply insured or not. My young friend who has charge of the railway Bill may have a very good idea of the theoretical working of this legislation, but when it comes down to its practical working out, he knows no more about it than hon. members. There are two sides to the question.


Mr. HEYD.: I can quite understand why the Minister of Justice attaches so much importance to the symmetry of the Bill, and his desire to have it uniform and regular. That sort of thing appeals to the legal mind, but to the ordinary layman, who wants to get on the spot in the shortest possible time and who is not held back by any niceties of construction or interpretation, it has no force. In the employ of the Grand Trunk Railway there are some 25,000 men, who, in Ontario at any rate, are deprived of certain rights that are enjoyed by other workmen. In return for a subscription by the company of fifty cents per year for each employee to the provident fund, these men have to sign an agreement that, if killed or injured while in the employ of the company, the company will be not liable to them or their representatives for any compensation, no matter whether it be in fault or not. If a man in the employ of a painter goes up a ladder with a defective round and falls and injures himself, he has an action against the master painter for having been the cause of the accident. But if a man is employed by a railway company, which has become part owner of a transcontinental system, he can be set to work around defective machinery, and if injured he has no recourse, because he has signed away his rights under a rule of a provident institution to which the company contributes fifty cents per year per head for every individual that belongs to it. If we have the power to put a clause in this

Bill providing that an employee of the Grand Trunk Railway shall have in Ontario the same rights as any other employee in that province, we certainly ought to do it. If the Workmen's Compensation Act was passed for the benefit of the workmen, th& employees on the Grand Trunk Railway should not be precluded from its benefits. 1 do not care whether the law is symmetrical or not, whether there are exclusions this way or the other way, if we have the power to settle this matter in this Bill, we ought to do it. The Minister of Railways and Canals has accepted many suggestions made with the idea of improving the Bill, and I hope the hon. Minister of Justice will accept similarly the suggestion we are now making. It is in the interest of the wage-earners of Ontario, and the Grand Trunk Railway can afford to pay.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: According to myi hon. friend, it is absolutely immaterial whether the thing be right or wrong. Provided it be a short-cut to what he has in view, it must be adopted. But my experience is that in legislation shortcuts lead to the cemetery.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is unfair that an employee should be compelled to sign a contract which takes away his rights and privileges and which at the same time may compel him to drop a large amount of insurance that he has kept up in some other society. A company which is getting rights and privileges from parliament should not De allowed toi force its employees into such a position.


Andrew George Blair: The question is whether or not it is within the legislative competency of this parliament to make such a provision as is here proposed. I have no doubt that the hon. Minister of Justice is entirely right. You might as well say that because this parliament incorporates a company to carry on a wholesale dry goods business in the city of Toronto, all the relations between the employees and employers come within the legislative control of this parliament, and we have the right to say what the conditions of employment shall be. My hon. friend says that some judges have passed an opinion to that effect. I would like to see the case, because I can hardly realize that any judge of eminence in Ontario could come to such judicial determination. I agree with the Minister of Justice that is too clear for argument that we have no such power as the hon. member asks us to attempt to exercise. If that be the case, what is it the committee are proposing to do ? Does it propose to destroy this Bill ? Does it propose to compel the Minister of Justice to advise the Governor General that we have passed a Bill, a portion of which is entirely beyond our competency ? Or does it propose that this Bill shall stop right here ? I do not
pretend to indicate what course the Minister of Justice will take in the premises, but if I were he and had advised the committee as strongly as he has, there is only one course which I would adopt.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not think there is any desire on the part of the House not to pay deference to the views expressed by the hon. Minister of Justice. But what we do ask is what damage would be done the company, if it were made responsible?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I say that it is responsible, under the law of Ontario. Holden and the Grand Trunk Railway to the contrary notwithstanding.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The opinion of the hon. minister is entitled to a great deal of respect, and I! would not presume to contradict him. If he says that notwithstanding the existence of this Grand Trunk Railway Provident Company, the widow or, representatives may enter an action against the company for damage sustained by the injury or death of an employee, the agreement in question will not be a bar to that action, I have nothing more to say, and am prepared to accept his opinion.


William Findlay Maclean: Is there not some way of attaining the end other than the one proposed, something in the way of disciplining the company-providing that it shall not do certain things ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: You would have to repeal the Act that gave them the power to establish this provident insurance company.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I take it that the law is as the hon. member who suggested the amendment has explained it to us. The objection that occurs to me is that it is difficult to legislate in a general Act and not interfere with the rights which the Grand Trunk Insurance Association has exercised under the authority of this parliament, or without considering the position to which that insurance association has advanced under the express authority of our own legislation. For, if the suggestions made in this amendment are well founded, by what legislature can we have that amendment enacted? Not by the provincial legislatures. Who has passed these by-laws ? It is a company incorporated under the authority of the Dominion parliament. It is a company which owes its existence to our legislation, It seems to me that if we have absolute control over the Grand Trunk Railway Company and this insurance association exists by virtue of our own enactment, we surely have the power to limit or expand the regulation-making power of the insurance association we have the power to declare they shall not pass by-laws such as this referred to by my hon. friend ; and it seems to me very desirable that some such provision as this amendment should be made in the interests of the workmen.


COMMONS '8172
Haughton Lennox: I do not propose to controvert the opinion of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), or the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick). They both give us illustrations of what the position and the relative rights of the two parliaments are. But I think there is a distinction which should be called to their attention at this stage. The ex-Minister of Railways says, if we incorporate an insurance company in the city of Toronto, we cannot regulate all its transactions from first to last, for these are largely matters-I understand both these gentlemen to agree as to this-relating to property and civil rights. To this extent, I think, the position is quite clear. But it leads up to the point we wish to discuss in this matter ; and I think that if we can make these hon. gentlemen thoroughly apprehend the point we are endeavouring to present, probably they will concur with us that what the mover of the amendment seeks can possibly be accomplished. We have incorporated the Grand Trunk Insurance Association, and have given them certain powers. But whether they have the powers, under that Act, to make certain regulations particularly rule 15-Mr. Chairman, if you and the assistant clerk will drop your conversation for the present, and if the hon. members of the House will suspend conversation for a time, it will be easier for me to make myself heard. What I was endeavouring to call the attention of the Minister of Justice to, is, that this parliament, having passed an Act incorporating the Grand Trunk Railway Company, or a branch of it, as an insurance association, had power, at that time, to limit the powers of the company as to what they should do in reference to their employees. So, It comes down to this, that the only difficulty arises from the fact that we are not dealing directly with the original Act, but are indirectly dealing with it in a general Act. There may, therefore, be some possible question as to the advisability of amending their powers at the present time, none as to our power. It is a mere matter of procedure. But when we keep in mind that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) who moves this amendemnt, introduced it as a Bill, of which all the companies concerned had full notice, that this Bill was discussed at length in the Railway Committee, and as recommended, practically unanimously, by that committee-at all events, there was an unanimous report-and that thus there is practically a Bill before the House for an amendment of the charter granted to the insurance branch of the railway company- when we consider this, we see that it is a mere matter of expediency or procedure. 1 do urge upon the minister to consider whether, having the power, and I quite concur in what' he says as to the law in reference to the province of Ontario-Mr. Chairman, will you call hon. members to order. I do Mr. MONK.
not propose at any time to have hon. members of this House think they can make as much noise as they like. If hon. gentlemen will continue conversation, and so prevent a member who is speaking from being heard without shouting at the top of his voice, I shall move that the committee rise. There is business to be transacted here. Every member of the House has equal rights, and I propose to exercise my rights. I am speaking in the interest of a large and' deserving class of people ; I am speaking in the interest of thousands of the labouring class of this country. Perhaps I may be unable to accomplish my purpose, but I do not propose to consent to hon. members, while I am speaking, carrying on conversation, in some instances, I am forced to believe, not with the best possible design.-
Now, addressing myself again through the Chair to the Minister of Justice, and endeavouring-with some difficulty, under the circumstances-to make myself clear without repetition, I wish to say that I recognize the position the hon. minister takes and am quite prepared to concur in his view with regard to the rights of the provinces is their full control over their legislation, and over certain classes of subjects. But I submit to the hon. gentleman who is in charge of the Bill that, having regard to the fact that we have incorporated this insurance'company, we can limit their power in such a way as we think fit, and may say : You shall not pass regulations which contract you out of liability ; we find that they are unfair and we hereby define your powers. I defer to the minister's opinion in the matter, but it seems to me it is all a question of what is judicious, it is a question of procedure. And, if we have this power, I submit that it will be no hardship upon the company if we exercise it-seeing that this Bill was introduced, has obtained publicity, and has been sanctioned by the Railway Committee, a fact which is always referred to, by hon. gentlemen who support the government, as almost conclusive as to the rights of the parties.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) say that you can amend a special Act by a general Act, unless you mention the special Act ?


Haughton Lennox: No, I do not think so.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Then there is no use talking.


Haughton Lennox: I think there is use in talking. I shall address myself through the Chair to the Minister of Justice, not to my hon. friend (Mr. Fraser). I have the greatest respect for my hon. friend when he rises, as he often does, at the close of a debate to enlighten both sides, wending his careful way through the mazes of what has been said, and judicially awarding praise and blame , but, I prefer to address myself to the Minister of Justice. What I wish to submit

to the Minister of Justice is this, that although we cannot affect a special Act without a special mention of the Act, I do not think that this should bar our way. I am entirely in accord with the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) who says :	Let us get
there by a short cut. We cannot adopt that view in one sense, though in another sense we can ; 1 mean that so long as we do no wrong let us not be too technical about the method by which we accomplish our object.


Peter Macdonald: The motion before the Chair is to reconsider section 242.
Amendment (Mr. Guthrie) negatived. Yeas 25, nays 41.


Mr. DAVIS.: I move to reconsider section 24.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. gentleman had better explain what he wants to accomplish.


Thomas Osborne Davis: In this section, subsection (e) deals with fire-guards, and in this Bill power is given to the commission to deal witii that question. But out in the Northwest Territories that power would be of no use whatever to the people for the reason that the commission would only have control over the right of way which belongs to the railway. Now, a fire is often started by sparks on windy days blowing from a locomotive outside the right of way, and we would like some provision whereby the railway company should be compelled to plough fire-guards and burn a tract of land in order to stop fires from running. This question has been up several times before this House, and I would like to read an extract from a report of the Commissioner of Public Works of the North-west Territories of 1901, which will give the minister an idea of how the territorial government feel on this question :
The department is doing everything possible to provide a thorough system of tire-guards throughout the territories, and in pursuance of that policy we ploughed or backset 950 miles of fire-guard last year, and in addition1 the small local improvement districts provided some 900 miles of guard. Our efforts, however, have been practically nullified in some districts by the failure of the railway companies to provide a proper system of fire-guardis along their lines to prevent the spread of the many fires which are started by their locomotives. The question has been dealt with in both the last two annual reports, buit it has no.w become so important and pressing as to require immediate action of some kind. . .	. The companies
naturally deny the claim that a large number of fires are started by their ,locomotives, but that such is the case is well known to residents in the vicinity of the railway lines, and to everybody who has given the matter any consideration. That fires are started in this way is only reasonable when it is noted that the guards, if any, which are put on by the company, are only a short distance from the track, and that in an open country subjected, like the greater portion of the teritordes, to
high winds, sparks from locomotives are sure to be carried outside such guards and start fires which spread until they get entirely beyond control. 'Unfortunately there is at present no legal provision compelling the companies to provide and maintain a proper system of guards, and umtess such a law is passed or public .opinion becomes strong enough, the companies are not likely to move in this important matter. In last year's report attention was directed to the correspondence which has passed between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the department regarding a proper system of guards, and to the failure in the effort to make any satisfactory arrangement.
I may say, Mr. Chairman, that this is a very important matter to stock raisers in the North-west Territories, because if fires are allowed to run in the fall of the year as well as in the spring of the year, they sweep over whole tracts of country and practically leave the ranches without any food for their cattle, because the grass has not time to grow up, and there is nothing to feed the stock the following spring. It is very important that they should have some provision whereby the railway company would be compelled to afford relief. I understand that in discussing this matter before, the ex-Minlster of RaiBvays and Canals thought it would he trenching on provincial rights to put such a clause in this Bill, that it would be forcing the company to go outside their regular right of way to plough fire-guards. The clause I would like to have inserted in the Bill is this :
'Provided that in respect of fire-guards the hoard may, if empowered so to do by the legislature of the North-west Territories or of the province of Manitoba respectively, order the company to enter upon land not owned by it to construct and maintain such fire-guards 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 of the company to comply with any such order of the board he an offence under this Act punishable, on summary 'conviction., by 'a fine not exceeding $1,000.
I understood the other day when this question was brought up by the member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) that one of the members for Toronto, Mr. Osier, who is connected with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, stated that some arrangement had been entered into by the railway companies and the government of the Northwest Territories in reference to this matter. I want to say that such is not the case. An arrangement was entered into which the government of the North-west Territories found very unsatisfactory. I will read you a telegram that was sent to the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) when he had a Bill up in connection with this matter :
Regina, N.W.T., April 20.
Walter Scott, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.	[DOT]
Territorial government have cancelled fireguard contract with Canadian Pacific Railway

to take effect at end of this year. Use your best efforts to get fire-guard Bill through compelling railway companies to do this work.


G. H. V. BULYEA.
[Stage Direction]
At the last meeting of the North-west Assembly that passed an ordinance with reference to this matter, to amend chapter 87 of thie Consolidated Ordinances of 1898, entitled an Ordinance for the Prevention of Prairie and Forset Fires. It says :
Section 21 of the Prairie Fires Ordinance is hereby amended by adding thereto the following subsection :-
(2) If a fire -shall be caused by the escape of sparks or any other matter from any engine or other thing it shall be deemed -to have been kindled by the person in charge or who should be in charge of such engine or other thing, but such person or his employer shall not be liable to the penalties im-p-oised by this section if in the case of stationary engines the precautions required by section 12 have been complied with and there has been no negligence in any other respect or in the oase of railway or other locomotive engines -such engine i-s equipped with a suitable smoke stack netting and ash pan netting in good repair and kept closed and in proper place and in ithe case of railway engines where the line of railway passes through prairie country there is maintained for a distance of at least three miles continuously in each direction from the point at which the fire starts on each side of such line of railway and not less than two hundred nor more than four hundred feet therefrom a good and sufficient fire-guard of ploughed lan-d not less than sixteen f-eeit in width kept free from weed® and other inflammable matter and the space between such fire-guard and such line of railway is kept burned -or .otherwise freed from the danger of spreading fire and there has been no negligen-ce in any other respect.
That is the ordinance, but I think the hon. Minister of Justice will perhaps agree that this will he considered ultra vires, and that it would be disallowed by the government on account of it interfering with matters over which the territorial government had no control. An arrangement was eventually obtained, as mentioned by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), hut not until lie companies became afraid that legislation would be passed here compelling them to do something themselves. The government of the North-west Territories has been offering to assist them in -doing this work for years, hot up to the present time they have not shown any disposition to do their part. My statement is borne out by an extract from a letter which the acting Commissioner of Public Works of the Northwest Territories sent to the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) :
I n-o.te your remarks regarding the possibility that the second reading of your Bill to amend the Bail-way Act regarding fire-guards may not be reached this session. We had, as you know, opened negotiations with the railway company with the object of getting them to be put in proper system of fire-guards before -the Bill was introduced, but had failed to get any satisfaction. Almost immediately after the introduction of your Bill -they telegraphed here for Mr. DAVIS.
further information, and it now looks, from correspondence which the deputy commissioner has had with Superintendent Leonard, as if the company were going to come to time and agree to pu-t in a proper system of fire-guards. I am quite satisfied that the introduction of the Bill caused this matter to move, and even if it has not re-ached its second reading, the fact that such legislation has bee-n introduced a-nd will probably be pressed next session will, without d-oubt. have the effect of making the Canadian Pacific Railway a.nd Canadian Northern Railway deal with this very important question.
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that the fact that the Bill was introduced by the bon. member for West Assiniboia had the effect of waking them up, and a correspondence was -started on this subject between the superintendent of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Mr. Leonard, in Winnipeg, and tlie territorial government, but up to the present time nothing satisfactory has come of it. I have already read a telegram from the territorial government saying that the arrangement that they had with the railway companies was being cancelled, and in connection with that I have read from the acting Commissioner of Public Works of the North-west Territories, giving the reasons why the territorial government have terminated this contract between the railway companies and themselves. He says :
As you are aware, in the spring of 1902 this government took up the question of fire-guard' construction with the Canadian Pacific Railway, owing to the very unsatisfactory manner in which the work had been done-or, in other words, had not been done-in years past, thus rendering a larger area of the Territories liable-to destruction by fire, for want of a proper fireguard along the line. This work is done in the interests of the settlers and not for the benefit of the railway company. A contract was signed in which the company agreed to contribute one-half the cost of construction of fire-guards along their line, up to a maximum of $10 per mile, that is, the railway company would not pay more than $10 per -track mile for a guard on the two sides of the track, or, in other words, a maximum of $5 per mile of guard. For reploughing this guard, the company would only pay one-half the cost of the work, hut in no case would they pay a sum exceeding $2.50 per mile of guard or $5 per mile of track. All the cost of inspection and everything incidental thereto was to be borne by the government, and in addition, in event of the guard having to make a detour around sloughs and other obstructions, the government pays the additional mileage caused thereby. Considerable difficulty was experienced last year in getting persons to tender for the work, and in fact a great many contracts entered into were never completed, or were only done in a most unsatisfactory manner, leaving no guard in some places on either side of the track, in several places only a few furrows, -some here and gome there, so you can easily imagine how inefficient a guard has been made. In many instances we were called upon to pay a higher price than $10 per mile of gmard, but the Canadian Pacific Railway, of course -only paid $5, the department paying the balance, and as I have already stated, bearing the cost and trouble of advertising for tenders, staking out and inspecting the guards.

This year a. very small number of unfinished portions of these guards have been completed in the vicinity of Dunmore and Cowley. From your intimate knowledge of the question, you will know full well that guards constructed last year will require backsetting or other work done on them this year to render them efficient, and safe should we have an abundance of rain, followed by a dry season in August or September.
At the present time, we are using our best endeavours to complete the work begun last year, and re-ploughing or disk-harrowing the portions of the guard finished, so as to render efficient protection to the country along the railway lines from Morley ts Broadview, and along the Crow's Nest and other branches, but owing to the demand for contract work of all classes, we are having difficulty in securing competent men to proceed with the work. We are endeavouring to deal with the guard along the line from Gull lake to Broadview and the Soo branch from the office. Mr. Stocks, assistant chief engineer, is travelling over the western portion of the line and the Crow's Nest line to see what he can do there, and we will probably know in the course of two weeks' time just how the matter stands. ' I may add here, that the work is of that class that should be done by the railway company themselves, they having, or being able to obtain, everything required in connection therewith and having the means of transporting contracting outfits along the line and getting them any supplies, so that it is hoped that your best efforts will be used toward getting a Bill through parliament to compel the railway company to do this work and not leave the matter as it is now, for the government or the people to do to protect themselves against the company. I may add in conclusion that a contract was submitted to the department last year by Messrs. Osier, Hammond & Nanton, on behalf of the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway and the C. and E. Railway, upon somewhat the same basis as that entered into with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and was returned to them some time in July, if I remember rightly, for amendment, as they had included the whole line from Prince Albert to Regina, along the Q. L. L. and S. Railway, and from Macleod to Stnathiooma, on tlhe C. and E., whereas lit was only inltemded to make a guard along the Prince Albert branch from Regina to Saskatoon and along the C. and E., from Macleod to Olds. Thinking that the contract would be returned With this amendment, the department proceeded with the work of constructing the guard along the two lines and practically completed a fireguard along both sides of the C. and E. Railway, from Madleod to Olds, and had a small amount of the work done on the Q. L. L. and S. Railway. The contract was never returned, and as a result the government paid for all the work done.
You were informed by the commissioner by telegraph some months ago, that notice had been given to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that the contract had been cancelled. This will take effect on December 31st next. Since that time the Q. L. L. and S. Railway and the C. and E. Railway people have been notified that It is not the intention of the department to undertake any further work of constructiong fireguards along these two lines.
I have also a further letter, dated July 17th, containing additional information,
with special reference to the C. and E. and Q. L. L. and Sask. Companies, as follows :
Since the question of the construction and reploughing of these guards has been taken in hand this year some correspondence has taken place between the department and Messrs. Osier, Hammond & Nanton, who represent these two railway companies, they being now able to produce the contract which was returned to them for execution in July, 1902. They have returned copies of the contract covering the Q. L. L. and S. Railway from Regina to Saskatoon, and the C. and E. Railway from Macleod to Oldis, duly executed. Unfortunately the late commissioner had executed these contracts on behalf of the department before forwarding them to Messrs. Osier, Hammond & Nanton ; dioiulbtless had it been left for the railway companies to perform their part and sign the contract first, these copies would have been returned long since, so you will understand that as far as the records of this office are concerned, the only inference we could draw was, that the C. and E. and the Q. L. L. and S. people had not and did not desire to execute the contracts at the time they were returned to them, last year, owing to the proposed amendments. I may add that these contracts were received by the department only yesterday, July 16th. It perhaps would be saying too much to state that Messrs. Osier, Hammond & Nanton showed had faith in not returning these contracts at the time they were returned to them for execution, but they are cerainly guilty of neglecting performing their part of the contract.
In other words these contracts were signed and sent back after the discussion about fireguards took place in this House. They kept them until they found there was to be legislation here, and then they signed these contracts and sent them back. I do not see why the government of the North-west Territories should he compelled to expend a large sum of money to do work that the railway companies themselves should properly do. It is their engines that set fire to the prairie and do the damage, and they should be compelled to protect the people. I hope that now that this matter is before the House, the Minister of Justice, who has charge of the Bill, will take steps to insert a clause in this Bill that will cover the ground and give power to the commission to see that proper guards are made. I quite understand that difficulty may arise from the fact of railways having to plough outside of their right of way on land that does not belong to them, but any one who is acquainted with the North-west Territories knows that there are miles and miles of government land where they could not be interfering with the rights of any person, and any way no one would object if they ploughed up fire-guards and carried out the idea suggested in tlie amendment. In the amendment which I have submitted, the commission before enforcing this, would have to get authority from the government of Manitoba or the government of the territories.
Mr. GOURLEY.: I think I have never had an opportunity of agreeing with the mem-

ber for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) since 1 have been in the House, until this evening, and I feel a pleasure in getting in touch with him at last. I know that the Minister of Justice cannot understand the fire-guard question in the slightest degree. No man who has lived in the east, no matter how intelligent he is-and the Minister of Justice I presume has the ordinary intelligence of the men of the east-no man in the east understands the question of fire-guards. A man has to live in the west, and to have experience in the west, before he understands the extraordinary difficulties connected with the fire-guard question. Before I had lived in the North-west long enough to become familiar with this matter, the question of fire-guards would have been utterly meaningless to me, but now, I know that it is a paramount question there. A rancher with 20,000 acres of grazing land, and a large stock of either cattle or sheep, is absolutely dependent upon the preservation of his pasture land for the preservation of his stock. A prairie fire may ruin him in a night. I have seen prairie fires do immense destruction within 24 hours, and within 48 hours in a grazing country that was smiling with green grass, I have seen the verdure disappear, and thousands and thousands of acres burned and browned, and the rancher compelled to take up his location and go hundreds of miles away, at a cost which was enough to ruin him. I recollect one evening, the ranch people having been at work all day gathering hay, suddenly some one saw a few miles away the appearance of a prairie fire. The whole country was alarmed and well it might. I Could not realize what the alarm was about, but in a few hours I saw this tremendous sheet of flame apparently as far as the human eye would carry, racing upon the people's stock, and the whole country side and the Mounted Police turning out and fighting that fire as if it were an invading army. It is a matter of the most vital importance to the rancher, whether he is going to be exposed day after day, and night after night, during the dry season in that country, to this alarming danger. The railway runs through the ranching country for hundreds of miles. A man's property may abut against the railway for ten or fifteen miles, and that whole country is exposed to a single spark setting the prairie fire going, and the man's ranch may be burned down, and thousands of square miles swept clean of a bit of verdure within 24 hours. No man can afford to have a band of sheep, or a bunch of cattle, in that country, without putting up a large quantity of hay for the winter. The winter may be soft and he may not need the hay, but on the other hand he may be compelled to feed his cattle for a considerable time, and then the salvation of the stock depends upon having a quantity of hay safely housedi The danger of a prairie fire is therefore double. It not only clears away the growing grass, Mr. GOURLEY.
but it destroys the hay which the rancher has preserved for the protection of his stock in the winter time. Consequently, the Minister of Justice should reflect upon this problem, as one of vital interest to the people of the North-west. I want it to be understood, that I have no quarrel with the Canadian Pacific Railway. I am friendly to the Canadian Pacific Railway. I believe it to be one of the greatest institutions in Canada, and I have never been able to sympathize with the people of the Northwest, who have indulged as I think, in the most unjust and ungenerous criticism of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which has done so much to develop their country. When I was in the west, I could not help but notice that the whole development of that west depended largely upon the Canadian Pacific Railway. Of course, when it was a young enterprise, it had to charge rates that were considered in the east high, but that was unavoidable. That was never a sufficient basis for any man to object to, or to abuse the Canadian Pacific Railway. It was a very proper basis, on which to-negotiate with the Canadian Pacific (Railway, and to appeal, for a reduction of their charges, but there was an attempt in certain quarters of the North-west, to arouse popular prejudices against the Canadian Pacific Railway, simply in order to play to the gallery. I always felt that unjust. There were, it is true, rightful criticisms to be levelled against the Canadian Pacific Railway, but these were magnified and distorted beyond reasonable bounds. I am not speaking to-night as an opponent of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I believe, that the Canadian Pacific Railway has been one of the greatest national institutions ever created in Canada, and that, it has done more to give us a national status, than even the distinguished nation maker opposite. At the same time while I do not wish to press anything against the Canadian Pacific Railway,
I think that the Canadian Pacific Railway should be called upon, to do justice in the-matter of fire-guards. I have some small interest in the North-west now, and I am compelled every year to undergo serious pecuniary loss for protecting property against fire. Gentlemen in the east do not know what the ploughing of fire-guards is. You may have a grazing territory there of considerable extent, and twenty or thirty miles away you have what is called a home ranch, where your home and your buildings are. you may drive your flocks or herds thirty miles away to pasture, but there is a home ranch consisting of probably 640 acres, and to protect that home ranch by fire guards, you have to send your men once, or perhaps twice a year to plough around that home ranch, a breadth of 30 or 40 feet, in order to protect your buildings from prairie fires.
If a man's ranching territory happens to lie near the railway, he has to plough for miles along it in order to protect his ranch

from the danger of fire. That burden in my time was thrown entirely on the ranchers, and it is an enormous burden. I have known men to be ploughing day by day and week by week. The furrow is so long that a man who starts in the morning hardly gets it e mpleted by night. 1 have no doubt that the Minister of Justice, from the narrow limits of his experience in the province of Quebec-I mean the mere knowledge of space and distance which no man in the east can have-is unable to realize the idea of magnificent distance which one gets on those magnificent prairies. Unless a man has that idea, he cannot comprehend what enormous burdens are thrown on the man who has great flocks and herds in the west and the immense pastures on which they subsist. A man may to-night be as rich in flocks and herds as Job, and to-morrow he may be as poor as Uazarus. In this case the hon. member for Saskatchewan is absolutely right. He has presented a real grievance, unlike many of the North-west grievances, which are entirely a play to the gallery. It is, a grievance thoroughly well based, and we must not go headlong and place the blame at the wrong door or the expense of rectifying the grievance where it does not belong. With regard to the constitutional difficulty, many men in this House are oppressed with constitutional difficulties. It is time we were done with this provincial rights business. A great deal of that difficulty arose from political questions. Whenever a man, who had not much mind to think or anything to say, wanted to say something, he would get up and talk about provincial rights. No matter how shallow he was, he could talk learnedly about provincial rights. There is no question of provincial rights involved in this case. When this parliament is properly seized of a subject matter which the constitution has vested in it, we can pursue that subject to the end, and no question of civil rights can intervene until parliament has exhausted its power of legislation on the subject matter in question. On this matter, which is a pure matter of railway legislation, we can legislate until we exhaust the subject, even if in doing that we enter the domain of what may be regarded as merely provincial rights; and if after we are done, nothing is left, no person can raise that question. It is of no use for the railway company to have guards inside their fences. The difficulty from fires is always twenty or thirty or forty yards outside the railway fences. The ranchman who ploughs his fire-guards ploughs them thirty or forty yards, or it may be one hundred yards, outside of the railway fence; and if you give him protection you must give it to him there. The land outside the railway fence, as a rule, belongs either to the government or to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. If it belongs to the company, there is no harm in forcing the company to plough fire-guards on their own
land outside of the fence. If it belongs to the government, and we give the Canadian Pacific Railway Company power to plough these fire-guards, there can be no harm in that. If it belongs to a ranchman, he will be happy to give the railway company power to go on the land and plough the fire-guards, because if the railway company does not do it, the ranchman will have to do it at his own cost. Whether the railway company should be charged with the whole cost or not is a matter of equity for the Railway Commission to decide. But in any case there should be some provision in this Bill. Whether the provision proposed by the hon. member for Saskatchewan is the right one or not, I do not know, but the mere wording of the Act would be a very simple matter once the principle to govern this thing were settled. It is, a matter of vital importance that this matter should be settled, or some day the whole North-west', along that railway, will be burned up, and a serious injury will be done to the whole stock interest of that country. They have been avoided on many an occasion with the greatest difficulty, and only by the whole country side turning out, and especially because of the good work done by that splendid body, the North-west Mounted Police. I have seen these policemen save the North-west many times from enormous disaster. They have a perfect system for fighting prairie fires. It is wonderful to see that magnificent body attack a prairie fire with military precision and overcome it just as they would an enemy that would venture to assail Canada. I cannot say too much in praise of that fine organization. It is one of the greatest organizations that could exist in any civilized country for the beneficent purposes of civilization. What it accomplishes in favour of good government and the protection of the North-west from lawlessness and destruction of property is beyond the comprehension of the ordinary man in the east. Therefore on all grounds, I would urge the Minister of Justice to take up this question and deal with it. It is the most important I have heard raised in the whole debate, on the Railway Bill. The only trouble is that our friends from the North-west raise many questions and throw such an amount of dust around every question they raise, that it is difficult to say which is the important and strong question to which parliament should turn its attention. This is one of the serious questions which ought to be dealt with in the interests of the ranches of the North-west, and I speak as an eastern man with some knowledge of the subject.


Andrew George Blair: The committee does not need to be convinced that conditions exist in the North-west which call for immediate legislation of some kind. The question now under discussion is not a new one at all. Some two or three months ago the hon. member from Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) called my attention to a Bill he was

about to introduce or had introduced dealing with this subject. I gave it my very best attention, and the conclusion I was compelled to arrive at was that we would have to depend on provincial or territorial legislation in order that proper and due effect should be given to the power we were conferring on the board.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: What Induced the hon. gentleman to come to that conclusion ? Was it the constitutional question ?


Andrew George Blair: Undoubtedly the constitutional question. We were asked to enact that the board should have power to authorize or compel a railway company to go upon private lands and take them without compensation for the use and purposes of a fire-guard.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Could the hon. gentleman not have given the railway commissioners power to direct the company to do this, and throw upon the company the necessity of making such agreements with the property owners that might be made or else give the, company the power of expropriation ad hoc.


Andrew George Blair: No, the better way appeared to be to authorize the board to require the company to make proper fireguards, but that would not become operative until the local authority had passed the necessary and proper legislation. I understand that there is no doubt at all but that they will pass that legislation, and when they do pass it, then the power conferred on the board, under the 24th section of this Bill, subsection e, will enable it to require the company to provide fireguards. The subsection is as follows :
With respect to the use of any engine, of nettings, screens, graites and other devices, and the use of any engine or car of any appliances and precautions, and, generally in, connection with the railway respecting the const-ruction, use ail'd maintenance of any fire-guard or works which may be deemed by the board necessary and most suitable to prevent as far as possible fires froim being started, or occurring, upon, along, or near the right of way of the railway.
You have there ample power conferred on the hoard to order the construction of fire-guards. My hon. friend ' shakes his head. You have all the power parliament can give the railway hoard to require that these precautions should be taken. It is proposed by the present amendment that this clause shall be inserted :
Provided that in respect of fire-guards the, board may, if empowered to do so, by the leg-isiature of the North-west Territories or the legislature of Manitoba, order the company to enter upon lands nut owned by it, to construct and maintain such fire-guards, and no claim for damages shall be maintained against the company for any act done in compliance with the order of the hoard.


Andrew George Blair: The trouble is this : The first portion Of that clause Is wholly unnecessary. The board has power now, to the full extent of the legislative authority of this parliament, to order a fire-guard to be erected. Therefore, we do not want to repeat that. Why is it necessary to assert that when Manitoba or the territories shall give the board power, they may do it ? You do not require such a provision, because the board have under this Bill that power the moment this legislation is passed. It is the latter part of the amendment to which I take more particular objection, ' no claim for damages shall be maintained against the company for any act done in compliance with the order of the board.'


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I am not concerned with the mere wording of the amendment, but only wish to arrive at the idea.


Andrew George Blair: We have nothing to do with arriving at ideas. Let the provincial legislature pass the necessary legislation and the board can act.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Why the provincial legislature ? We are fully competent. If the hon. gentleman would suggest a legal argument which precludes that competency, I am not so prejudiced as not at once to give in. But I can see nothing in the constitution of Canada to prevent our fully exhausting the subject in every way. We are seized with the power to make an Act on this subject matter. Once seized with the subject matter, we cannot be ousted from that jurisdiction by any claim of the provincial legislature. I think there may have been, at one time, in the early days of the study of the constitution, a narrower idea prevailing; but I am persuaded that this is the correct construction of the constitution, and tile one approved by our constitutional lawyers, by the Privy Council, and by every authority. For instance, it was once the idea, among provincial judges, that this parliament, though It was clothed with power to legislate, fully, upon bankruptcy, it could not invade, or overcome, a provincial Act, that gave a preference. That is exploded to-day. It is now held, that if we undertake to legislate upon bankruptcy, we can exhaust every civil right known to the law, and oust every provincial statute, if necessary, and if we deem it wise policy. Wie can deal with the subject of promissory notes ; we can deal with the subject of execution. Provincial laws may give priority in execution. We can come in, and destroy in a moment; no control by the provincial legislatures, over matters of property and civil rights can stand in our way. In these matters the provincial control over questions of property and civil rights means control of what is left after we have done legislating on the subject. That is to say, if we undertake to legislate, with regard to property and civil rights, on a subject over which we have jurisdiction, there is nothing

for the provincial legislatures except what is left outside of our legislation. This parliament has vested in it the right to legislate on the subject of railways. We can regulate them, control them, confer powers upon them, and require them to exercise those powers in a certain way. When we enter upon that subject, we can exhaust every civil right, and we have no right to make our legislation depend upon anything done or left undone by a provincial legislature. That is why, in the Railway Committee, I urged that every mile of railway should be declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, in order that we might have one law, one set of rules governing all the railways in the country. Therefore,
I would like to hear the Minister of Railways and Canals state specifically, if there is any reason why we should not provide that every railway shall, within two hundred or five hundred yards of its own fences, and of its own right of way, make a fire-guard, and then, having made that general order, provide wise regulations for carrying it out. Take the case of Dominion property. We could provide that the company shall have the right to go upon that land without compensation. Our Act would be a license to any railway company. This would provide for fire-guards on the property that belongs to the Dominion. Then, with reference to the property that belongs to the Canadian Pacific Railway-and every other lot along the railway, that has not been sold belongs to them-no question would arise, because they would have the right to make fire-guards across their own property. There might be another class of lands, those belonging to private individuals. The owners would be only too happy to agree to the employees of the company going upon their land to plough a fire-guard. In my own case I would be only too happy to welcome them. In the case of these lands we can make some provisions that, if the Canadian Pacific Railway offered to make the fire-guard over private lands and the right to do so was refused, that should be a perfect defence in any suit for damages that might arise. I think that would be perfectly fair. So, for these three classes of land-government land. Canadian Pacific Railway land and land of private individuals-we could make regulations here that would be perfectly constitutional, and against which there could be no objections. I do not think it is right for us to be constantly deferring to the supposed rights of provincial legislatures, making our legislation depend upon those supposed rights when really there are no such rights in existence.


Andrew George Blair: In the course of a conversation I had with the hon. member for West Assinibota (Mr. Scott) I stated the conclusion I felt justified in arriving at on this matter. I did not come to that conclusion without having given the matter the very best consideration in my power; and I
assured him-and I am still of that opinion-that the Bill as it stands now will give all the power that he desires, except that it does not, by enactment, declare that these people shall have the lands taken away from them without compensation. My hon. friend who is now in charge of the Bill may conclude otherwise. I do not think he will, but it is for him to say whether he will adhere to the position I took when I had charge of the Bill. I pointed out that I could not consent to make any change or adopt any different principle in the case, taking the land of private owners for the purpose of fire-guards from that which applies in the case of lands of private owners taken for other purposes. We have provisions in the Bill which control and regulate that matter in its entirety. And, if you do not wish to go to the provincial legislature for this power, or, if, going to the provincial legislature, you fail to get the power, it is still open to the board to provide that fire-guards shall be made upon the property of individuals, and if that is provided, the company will have to take advantage of the powers of expropriation, paying to the owners the compensation provided in the Act. We cannot go outside of that. The hon. gentleman must see that it would be impossible for us to incorporate in the Bill any different principle in dealing with private property under these circumstances from those which we recognize in dealing with private property under other provisions of the Bill. That question, I take it, is settled, unless my hon. friend feels that he would be compelled to vary or depart from it. This Bill as it stands covers all the ground. I assure my hon. friend that, in my opinion-and be can take also the opinion of the Minister of Justice-it covers the ground as fully and completely as we can cover it, and as fully as is asked for, except that we do not say, and we ought not to say, that we are going to take the property of people away from them without compensation. For we have no power to do so. Of course, we can confiscate by an Act of this parliament, for parliament is supreme. But when I say we have no power to do this, I use the word in the general sense. We should not take away the property of any man, except we give him compensation. It is said that very little private property would be taken for this purpose. I am not sure that that is a correct statement. The information given me by the hon. member for West Assiniboia is that a great deal of private property would have to be taken for the purpose of this protection; and when I asked the question, the hon. member said that the people who owned the land along the railway were not interested in the fire-guards, did not care about having them, and would not go out of their way to afford facilities for laying them down but would be likely to exact the last dollar for property taken from them for this purpose. So, the question stands to-day

as It stood then. I trust the committee will not feel that there is any good reason why there should be a departure from the rule that governs all legislatures, at all events, under British institutions, and that has always governed them.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Would the ex-minister say whether he thinks this language would justify the board in ordering the erection of a fire-guard outside the actual limits of the railway ?


Andrew George Blair: The board has power, or if any supplementary authority was needed it could be obtained, to authorize the taking of the property under the Expropriation Act. You do not want any legislation for that purpose, because you have it now.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Do I understand the exMinister of Railways to mean that the Railway Commission would have power to order the railway company to provide a proper system of fire-guards ? If so, it would be the duty of the company, under the expropriation clause of this Act, to go outside and buy that land if they found it necessary. Will the board, under this subsection (e), have power to force the company to erect these fire-guards outside of their right of way ? I would like to know also what right the local legislature has to pass legislation dealing with lands ?


Andrew George Blair: They are the only legislature that can do so, dealing with the question of compensation.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Do I understand that under this Act the commission will have power to force the company to put up these guards ?


Andrew George Blair: That is my opinion.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Do I understand the exminister to say that we could not here amend this clause by inserting a few words giving to this commission power to expropriate land, or authorize the company to go upon it and exercise rights ?


Andrew George Blair: No ; not without paying something for it.


Mr. OLIVER.: I am willing to take the word of the ex-minister as to the power of this commission.


Andrew George Blair: That is my opinion, and the opinion of the Minister of Justice.


Frank Oliver: That this clause as it stands fully empowers the Railway Commission to order .the erection of fire-guards outside of the railway right of way ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The minister did not say so.


Frank Oliver: Do I understand that it is within the power of the local legislature to provide that this authority may be exercised without compensation to the owners of property ? I understood the minister to say that this parliament would not have the Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
right to give that authority to the Railway Commission.


Andrew George Blair: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Well, now, would the local legislature have the right, leaving outside the question of whether it would be equitably right or not, to authorize the making of fire-guards, under the authority of the commission, on property outside the right of way ?


Andrew George Blair: That is our opinion.


Frank Oliver: They would have the right to legislate to do what the ex-minister intimated would be practically an act of spoliation ?


Andrew George Blair: Yes.


Frank Oliver: That satisfies me on the subject. I am perfectly satisfied to take the ruling of the ex-minister. Let me point out, however, that taking the right to construct a fire-guard on private property is not an act of spoliation, and should not be considered, in my opinion, as requiring expropriation. The necessity of fire-guards exists because of the land not being cultivated, or owing to the fact that the owner of the land does not reside in the immediate vicinity and is not able, except at great loss, to make the fire-guard. Just as soon as the land comes into cultivation, or just as soon as settlement becomes close along the line of railroad, then the necessity of entering upon outside land and making these guards ceases. It is merely a temporary necessity caused by the peculiar existing conditions, which, in process of time, will change, at least in a great part of the country, so that where fire-guards are necessary now they will not be necessary later on. There would have been a danger in passing legislation here covering the whole case that the law would be made applicable to parts of the country where it is not necessary.


Andrew George Blair: We have restricted that.


Frank Oliver: Then I consider that the provision as it stands, and as interpreted by the minister, is much better than a hard and fast piece of legislation which would put unlimited compulsion on the railway company. It must be largely within the judgment of somebody as to whether a fireguard is actually necessary. Where it is not actually necessary expense should not be incurred, nor should trespass be committed upon private property ; but where it is necessary it is not a trespass upon, but a protection of private property.
Motion (Mr. Davis) to reconsider section 24 negatived.


Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).: I rose this afternoon to ask the minister to allow the committee to return to section 242, which deals with actions for damages. I think the present clause does not cover the point

which should be covered for the protection of farmers who have to take their cattle to market. I may perhaps in a few words relate a circumstance that happened two or three weeks ago on the Canadian Pacific Railway, near the town of Galt. Three farmers, two of them neighbours of mine, and the other a resident of the constituency of my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram),, were killed, and three others were seriously injured owing to a rear end collision that occurred between a freight train and another train. The freight train was loaded with cattle, and the men were asleep in the caboose. At midnight another freight train came along, ran into the cattle train, and these three men were killed. Of course, an inquiry was made into the cause of the accident. An inquest was held on one of the men who was killed, but the coroner did not take much pains to probe the facts. It seems that he was very anxious to get through with the inquest, and a full inquiry was not made. He refused to allow the solicitors for the friends of the men who were killed to examine witnesses. A verdict was given and all parties seem to have been exonerated from blame. My reason for bringing this matter up is that I think something should be placed in this Bill to protect men who entrust their lives and their property to the hands of the railway companies. Of course, accidents may occur, but whenever the railway employees or the company are to blame for the accident, these men should have redress, and I hope that the hon. Minister of Justice will see his way clear, now that this has been explained, to place a clause in this Bill covering the case. The cattle men are obliged to sign an agreement with the railway company whereby they renounce any claim to redress in case of accident. If the cattle were killed, they could get redress, but if they lost their lives their relatives have no recourse. Human lives amount to very little apparently to railway companies. These men left widows and children and there should be a court to which these widows and children could appeal for redress. If there is no court established for such a purpose there ought to be, and I do think that the government should see that our farmers are protected in taking their cattle to market. Therefore, I beg to move :
That section 242 he reconsidered and that the following subsection, to be known as subsection 4, he added1 to section 242 : ' Whenever any cattle or other live stock are shipped on any railway and the person in charge of such cattle or other live stock is killed or injured through the carelessness or neglect of the railway company or its employees, the case may be tried in any court of competent jurisdiction and the company shall be liable for all damages.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would suppose that this amendment would not be very necessary, because the law provides
now not only for the protection of gentlemen in charge of stock, but also for the protection of the general travelling public. Any person who travels by railway has redress if an accident happens through the carelessness of the employees of the railway company or of the company. There are courts of competent jurisdiction to deal with such matters.


Andrew George Blair: I presume what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Robinson, Elgin) has in his mind is this : The ordinary rules of railway companies will not permit the owner of cattle to send along people free of charge with the cattle. The railway companies engage to take care of the cattle themselves, and they are bound to deliver the cattle at their destination and to look after them while in transit. But, if the owner of the cattle thinks he would like to send one or two or more men along and if the owner is willing and if the people who go are willing to ride with the cattle, not in an ordinary conveyance, not in a first, second or third class passenger coach, but to travel with the cattle, receiving their transportation free, then it is a perfectly reasonable and proper thing for a railway company to say :	Well, if you
wish to take the risk we will permit you to accompany the cattle, but you must take the risk. Unless you are prepared to travel in proper cars which we provide for passengers you will have no claim for damages. It is under those circumstances that the hon. gentleman says these people are not able to recover. I do not think we ought to change the law at all. I agree with the hon. Minister of Justice that it would be very unwise legislation to adopt a provision of that kind; therefore, I think tiie committee ought not to reconsider the section.


Andrew B. Ingram: As I undersand it, the railway company insists upon a caretaker to accompany the stock, provided the stock is to be transported a distance exceeding 100 miles. Then, I understand they have a certain provision that if the caretaker accepts a pass the company shall not be responsible for damages in case of accident. I think it can be shown that in certain cases which have been tried in court, our judges have differed on that question. I do not profess to be a lawyer, but it occurs to me that if one judge is correct in what he holds then the companies are responsible according to the law as he interprets it. Take the case of Bicknell vs. the Grand Trunk Railway Company :
A contract was made by a railway company for the carriage of cattle to a point on the line of a connecting railway company at a fixed rate for the whole journey. The contract provided that the shipper (or his drover) should accompany the cattle ; and that the person in charge should be entitled to a ' free pass,' but only ' on the express condition that the railway company are not responsible for any negligence,

default, or misconduct of any kind on the part of the company or their servants :
Held, that the condition was valid and could be taken advantage of by the connecting railway company, who therefore were not liable to the shipper for injuries suffered by him in a collision caused by their servants' negligence.
The judge says :
By the contract between the plaintiff and the Bay of Quinte Company, it was provided, by the terms of the 17th clause of the agreement endorsed upon the receipt note, that ' When free passes are given to persons in charge of animals, it is only on the express condition/that the railway company are not responsible for any negligence, default, or misconduct of any kind, on the part of the company or their servants, or of any other person or persons whomsoever, causing or tending to cause the death, injury or detention of any person or persons travelling upon any such free passes, and whether such free passes are used in travelling on any regular passenger train, or on any other train whatsoever ; the person using any such pass takes all risks of every kind, no matter how caused.
It will be observed that this clause merely exempts the contracting company from liability and does not refer at all to the defendant company.
The judge comments on that clause in this way :
The fact that he was being carried free, if it was a fact, would make no difference, as appears from the Jennings case. But I do not think there is any evidence that he was being carried free. I should find, as a fact, that the consideration that he paid for the carriage of the cattle included his own carriage or the carriage of some person in charge of the cattle. For, by clause seventeen, above referred to, it was necessary for the plaintiff himself, or some one under his direction, to travel with the cattle to take charge of them, as will appear from the directions therein contained (the learned judge read clause 17 and continued) :	

It is perfectly manifest, I think, and I should find as a fact that the cattle would not have been delivered for the purpose of carriage had not the company agreed to some one going along with them for the purpose of looking after them. It was as much a part of the contract that the plaintiff, or some one In his hehalf, should go with the cattle, as it was that the cattle should be carried by the company.
I do not see anything to exonerate the defendant from liability.
That was the decision in the case. The jury found $5,000 damages against the company for causing the injury to this man, but on appeal, judges Osier, MacLen-nan, Lister and Moss, all disagreed with Judge Rose, the trial judge in the case. The judgment in appeal was unanimous, but it shows that the law is not by any means very clear.


Mr. COWAN.: The court of appeal reversed the trial judge, and that is the established law of the province now. It was settled in the court of appeal in the Bick-nell case that wherever a man is travelling on a free pass there is no contract, and, therefore, he takes his chances.


Andrew B. Ingram: 


Andrew B. Ingram: This parliament now enacts that when stock gets injured on a railway by reason of the negligence of the railway company, the company shall be responsible, and it strikes me as the most remarkable thing that a man can contract himself out of any compensation because of accident, when in nine cases out of ten he never reads the contract, and only accepts the pass and signs the contract under the impression that he cannot ship his cattle unless he accompanies them or lias a caretaker to do so. Why should the caretaker of cattle on a train be able to contract himself, and his family in case of his death, out of the possibility of securing damages because of the negligence of the railway company ? It does not seem fair to me as a layman. They compel the caretaker to go with the cattle, and if he accepts a pass then he contracts himself out of any liability on the part of the railway company. There are suits arising from this accident that occurred at Galt, and there is no question at all but that it was due to the gross carelessness on the part of a railway employee. The company have a semaphore there, and they have provided everything necessary, if the employees carry out the instructions of the company to prevent accidents, but this accident occurred because of negligence on the part of an employee, and these three men lost their lives and others were injured. It is a hardship to the families of these three men that they have to suffer on account of the loss of their bread winners, and I hope something will be done by the Minister of Justice to remedy this defect in the law.


Mahlon K. Cowan: 1 draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact, that while under the law a railway company is supposed not to he able to contract itself out of negligence, at the same time the railway company compels a shipper in certain cases to sign a contract in consideration of a reduced rate to limit the liability of the company. I have a case in mind which no doubt the legal gentlemen in the House are quite familiar with. It is the case of Robinson vs. the Grand Trunk Railway. The race horse ' Henry R.' was injured in a collision, being shipped from the city of St. Catharines. At the time of shipment Robinson was compelled by the railway company to sign a contract, that in consideration of the reduced rate charged by the railway company their liability was limited to $100 in the event of damage through the negligence of the railway. The horse was killed in a collision. An action was brought and the value of the horse was fixed by a St. Catharines jury at $5,000. It turned out upon the trial that although it was stipulated in the contract signed by the shipper, that it was in consideration of a reduced rate, as a matter of fact it was the usual rate charged by that railway, as well as others, and was not a reduced rate.

In appeal, tlie Supreme Court held, following the Vogel case, that while the railway could not contract itself out of negligence, at the same time a man could enter into a contract with a railway company, and in that contract the railway could limit its liability to a specific amount notwithstanding its negligeuce, and that the contract was good although it was not' a reduced rate that was charged as the contract stated. It does seem to me that there ought to be some provision in this Bill to meet an emergency of that kind. I do not think that a railway company should be able to contract against its own negligence in any ease wherever a fare is charged.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The Minister of Justice, not being familiar with the shipping of cattle, did not grasp the full significance of the objection that was raised by Mr. .Robinson, and included in his amendment. It may not have been expressed scientifically, but he was really endeavouring to cure a wrong. In the west, every shipper has to send a caretaker with the cattle, and while the caretaker may technically get a pass, as a matter of fact, he travels in consideration of the charge that is made for the cattle, and Judge Rose was perfectly right in holding that was the true construction of the contract. A part of the money that is paid by the shipper, is paid as much for the transportation of the caretaker, as the transportation of the cattle, but, of course, there can be no opinion among legal men, but, that the court of appeal were perfectly right in holding as they did.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend will observe that both courts could not be right.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I hold that Judge Rose was right and the court of appeal was right, because their decisions were on different points. Now, the question arises, will this parliament sanction any railway company contracting with people to carry their freight, and at the same time contracting that in case the company kill an individual who accompanies the freight, they shall not be responsible to any one for damages ? That is the question before us. The court of appeal has decided that that contract is valid ; but I think that Judge Rose stated the equity of the thing, which should control our action. We are here not to construe hard and fast statutes, but we are here to settle a principle ; and I agree with the hon. member opposite that we should affirm the principle that no railway company should compel anybody to contract that if the company negligently kill an individual there should be no remedy. Up to this time it may have been legal ; but the question is, shall we in future allow the Grand Trunk or any other company to compel a man to sign a contract like that, so that there will be no damages to be paid by the 257
company in case he is killed ? I say that it is not right, and that some remedy should be provided. In the case cited with regard to the horse, the simple point on which that case w^as decided was that both parties had agreed what the damage should be in the case of loss ; and the principle is clear that when a man agrees what his damage shall be, no court can interfere. In that case the shipper need not have shipped the goods until he had made a satisfactory contract ; but having done it, there was no remedy, and I do not see very well how that can be changed. But in the case brought up by the hon. member for Elgin, all we have to do is to provide that no company shall compel any man to forego his right to damage if the damage is caused by negligence of the company, notwithstanding his having used a free pass. I would go that far, because the court would be met by this free pass, and the courts might not all be like Judge Rose, who held that the free pass was not a free pass, but was the holder's right and was part of the contract to carry the cattle. Therefore, I -would provide that no such contract would be valid, and that the conditions on that pass were unreasonable and void. That would cure the whole difficulty. The company would not be allowed to plead those conditions, and the relatives of the party killed would be thrown back upon their remedy at common law without this technical defence of the company. I think the House should say that the man who goes with the cattle should have the protection of the common law. Is it not an awful thing for this parliament to say that the relatives of a man who has been killed have no remedy? I think we should not be put in that position. I think the time has come when we should make a law which would suit another state of affairs, and when those decisions should not longer continue to be made, and they must be made unless we alter the law.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to ask the minister one question. Shippers who must sign a shipping bill, sign that is practically a contract. There are many conditions in that shipping bill in which the shipper contracts away his rights ; but he is obliged to do it or he cannot ship. Is it not a fact that the courts hold generally that if the conditions in that shipping bill are unreasonable, the shipper is not compelled to forego the rights which he has signed away by signing that shipping bill ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend has overlooked the provisions of section 275, which provides that the conditions shall not be binding unless they have first been approved by the board.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Hitherto, so far as I know, they have not been approved by anybody. I thought the court would decide


COMMON'S S196
[Stage Direction]
what was reasonable or unreasonable, and, if the conditions were unreasonable, the shipper would not be bound by them.
Andrew B. Ingram: I cannot understand how It comes according to the Minister of Justice, that a Grand Trunk Railway employee cannot contract himself out of any benefit in case of accident, by reason of the company contributing a certain sum to the provident insurance society, while the cattle drover who goes to take care of stock does do so by reason of accepting a pass.
Bill reported with amendments.


LEAD BOUNTIES.
[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following resolutions
That it is expedient to repeal chapter eight of the statutes of 1901, intituled : ' An Act to provide for the payment of bounties on lead refined in Canada,' and to enact as follows
1.	The Governor in Council may authorize the payment of a bounty of seventy-five cents per one hundred pounds on lead contained in leadbearing ores mined in Canada ; such bounty to be paid to the producer or vendor of such ores, upon evidence that such ores have been smelted in Canada. Provided, that the sum to be paid as such bounty shall not exceed five hundred thousand dollars in any fiscal year. Provided, also, that when it appears to the satisfaction of the minister charged with the administration of this Act that the standard price of pig-lead in London, England, exceeds twelve pounds ten shillings sterling per ton of two thousand two hundred and forty pounds, such bounty shall be reduced proportionately by the amount of such excess.
2.	Payment of the said bounty may be made from time to time to the extent of sixty per centum of the full bounty authorized, subject to adjustment at the close of each fiscal year. If at the close of any year It shall appear that during the year the quantity of lead produced, on which the bounty is authorized, exceeds thirty-three thousand three hundred and thirty-three tons of twio thousand pounds, the rate of bounty shall be reduced to such sum as will bring the payments for the year within the limit mentioned in section one.
3.	If at any time it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council that 'the charges for transportation and treatment of lead ores in Canada are excessive, or that there is any discrimination which prevents the smelting of such ores In Canada on fair and reasonable terms, (he Governor in Council may authorize the payment of bounty at such reduced rate as may be deemed just, on the lead contained in such ores mined in Canada and exported for treatment abroad.
4.	The said bounties shall cease and determine on the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and eight
5.	The Governor in Council may make regulations for carrying out the intention of this Act.-The Minister of Finance.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: This resolution provides for the repeal of the existing Act passed in 1901 respecting bounties on lead and provides another system of bounties in lieu


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman speaks of the bounty entirely ceasing when lead has attained a certain price. What price would that be ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 
Edward Frederick Clarke: When will the payment of this bonus be commenced?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It will take some time, I suppose, for the mines to get into operation, but if they were in operation at once after the passing of tills Act. payments would be begun.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The bounty will not be paid on any ore that has already been mined?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My attention has been drawn to that point. From the best Information 1 could gather, the quantity of ore already mined is very small. It would be difficult to distinguish between the ore on the dump and that which is to come out. Still, if it were likely to be a matter involving a considerable sum, we should take steps to make the distinction. But we are advised and believe that it will hardly be worth while to do so.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The bounty will be paid on the lead ore already mined?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes,
that now on the dump.


Jabel Robinson: What guarantee will the minister have in paying the bonus ? How will he know what quantity has been mined ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In all bounty legislation we must give, as we do in this case, power to the Governor in Council to make regulations. The Department of Trade and Commerce, under whose direction this matter will come, will have to provide regulations so as to take the greatest precautions against fraud.
On section 1,


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I propose to strike out the words ' upon the evidence that such ores have been smelted in Canada,' because we are dealing with this point by an amendment later on.


Mr. POPE.: What interpretation do we place upon the word ' vendor' ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It has been represented that, in the case of a small miner, he may produce lead, but not be able to hold it long enough to take it to the smelter. And if he raises money on it or sells it, the buyer should not be deprived of the right to the bounty.


Robert Laird Borden: It Is assumed that the producer will get the benefit of it in the price he obtains?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


James Clancy: What provision is the hon. minister making with regard to making a reduction upon a favourable condition of the market? It seems to me that this is surrounded with great difficulties, except in the case of a long-continued rise in the price. There might be a sharp increase in the London market, yet none of our lead might get the benefit of that increase.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I understand that what is called the ' smelter return' fixes on every transaction the standard price of lead by the latest cable quotation. This smelter return is a document

which the proprietor of the smelter gives to the producer of the lead when the lead reaches the smelter. That would bear on the face the London price of the day, and that transaction throughout would be governed by that price.


Robert Laird Borden: This is undoubtedly a very important industry in the province of British Columbia, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) is not giving the House very much information as to the causes in relation to that industry which have induced the government to adopt this measure of encouragement. I understand that the amount of capital invested in silver lead mines in British Columbia is supposed to be about $20,000,000. No doubt, the hon. member for Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) would be able to inform the House as to that. The amount invested in railway and steamship lines which depend largely upon this industry, I understand, is in the vicinity of $12,000,000 or $15,000,000. The amount invested in smelters is $800,000. The lead production in 1900 was 31,070 tons, worth $4,487,000 ; in 1901. the prduction was 25,700 tons, worth $3,336,000; in 1902, the production was 12,000 tons, valued at $1,154,000, but the production has fallen at the present time, as the hon. Finance Minister has stated, to about 5,000 tons. I would like to know from the Minister of Finance what effect he expects this bounty will have on the maintenance and development of the lead-ore production. Is it expected that this will give the Canadian market to the Canadian producer of lead to any greater extent than at the present time ? I understand that our consumption of lead in Canada is somewhere in the vicinity of 14,000 tons annually. I do not know whether that is correct, or whether the Minister of Finance has different information.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is about correct, as I am advised.


Robert Laird Borden: And all that we consume is imported, I understand, with the exception of about 3.000 or 4.000 tons. Is that in accordance with the information of my hon. friend?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, is the bounty expected to have the result of giving the Canadian market to the Canadian producers to any greater extent than at present? In the next place, will the bounty have the effect, that we all desire, of establishing in this country any of the industries allied to the production of lead-for example, works for the corrosion-I think that is the expression-of lead, and other industries, which, I believe, might be expected to result from the encouragement of this industry by a protective duty ? I do not know whether the Minister of Finance has any information for the House Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
on these subjects; but it seems to me that it would be extremely desirable that some policy of encouragement to the lead-mining industry should be adopted which would bring about results of this kind. If this bounty will not give to the lead producers of British Columbia the control of the home market to any greater extent than they have control at the present time, it will amount, in a great measure, to a bounty on export. If the lead producers have to send to a foreign market for sale all the lead they produce in excess of the 3,000 or 4.000 tons sold in Canada, practically we are paying a bounty to encourage production first, but, in the second place, to encourage the export of what we produce.
Now, I am desirous of supporting the government in any measure which will have the effect of developing this industry in British Columbia and of increasing the production of our own lead mines in Canada, but I would rather see that accomplished in a way which would give the lead producers of this country control of their own market. I dare say, that if it were attempted by means of a revision of the customs duties, it would be necessary to make changes in the customs duties for the purpose of increasing the protection to other industries, but would it not be desirable to do that if by doing so you could not only give the Canadian producers of lead control of the Canadian market, but at the same time give encouragement to the establishment in this country of the other industries to which I have referred ? I have no doubt that all these matters have been under the consideration of the hon. Minister of Finance, but I think it would be well that he should give some information to the committee on this point, because I think he will agree with the rest of us, that if it is possible to accomplish the results which I have indicated, it is desirable to do so. I have a good deal of doubt, myself, as to whether the system of bounties which is proposed by these resolutions would accomplish the result in anything like the way it could be accomplished by increased protection in the shape of customs duties. At the same time, I realize to so very great an extent the importance of this industry, not only to British Columbia, but to the country as a whole, that I am willing to support the government even in this measure which the hon. Minister of Finance has introduced, although I am of the opinion, which I think is very well founded, that a better result might have been accomplished in the way I have indicated. I would like if the hon. Minister of Finance would give us an idea as to the causes of the depression in the lead industry.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is very largely due to the attitude of the American trusts and combinations, which have practically shut our lead out of the market. As to the general question as to the effect of this bounty upon the home market, I think

ray hon. friend will agree with me that the home market is entirely a question of price. If the producer of lead in British Columbia can sell his lead low enough, he will have control of the home market. This bounty will enable him to sell his lead at a lower rate than he otherwise could sell it for, and in that way he can get access to the market. I do not think the lead producers contemplate dealing in this way with the export trade. They will have to export some, because the total consumption is only 14,000 or 15,000 tons, and they contemplate an output of at least double that, and some portion will have to be exported ; but I anticipate they will supply a much larger amount to the home market than has been done in foi

mer years. However, I imagine that with the bounty and with lead being produced under more favourable conditions, it will enable other manufacturers to take this lead and to develop their industries, although it is only a conjecture as to that. I understand, however, that there are parties who propose proceeding in the production of white lead, which is a product of the corroding process, and it is very likely that that product will be made in Canada under the assistance given in this way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) would have done better, if he had followed the advice given by the legislative assembly of British Columbia. They say :
That it is desirable in the interest of silver-lead mining and smelting industries of British Columbia, that the duties on pig-lead and the products thereof imposed by the Dominion of Canada should be so increased as to protect the capital invested in these industries.
That is to say, that these duties should be so increased as to shut out American lead which is being used in Canada, and provide at least a home market for the Canadian producer. Their judgment was that customs duties would have accomplished that better than bounties would, and I think they would have done so. The hon. minister says that if we pay them a bounty and that bounty enables them to sell their lead cheaper so as to compete with the Americans, they will have control of the home market, but would it not be better to put on a customs duty so as to shut out the American lead, and if necessary, in addition to that to grant a small bounty and encourage the manufacture of lead at home. If the government have ignored the recommendation of the legislative assembly, I would have thought that they would have had some regard for the recommendation of the Rossland Liberal Association, which passed a very strong resolution on January 10, 1903, on the same lines. The following resolution was adopted
That we. the members of the Liberal Association of Rossland, do heartily endorse the action of the silver-lead miners and do especially urge upon the Dominion government
the establishment of such duties as will 'secure for Canadian mines the benefits of the entire home market and will enable resumption of work in the many mining districts of British Columbia which are now suffering from great depression.
The government had the recommendation of the legislative assembly, and to make it stronger, the Liberal Association of Ross-la.nd backed it up with their recommendation. I would have expected that the government would have paid a good deal more attention to that, coming, as it does, from their own friends, and their own friends only, than if it had come from another source. But I regret that they have seen fit to ignore the recommendation, and that, instead of increasing the duty, as has been advised by both of these bodies, they propose to give a bounty that will allow the Americans to control our market still which ought to be supplied by our own people at home. In my judgment, the government are not adopting tlie best way to do for the lead miners what they desire. They are not securing the home market to the lead miners of Canada, and while I think they will improve it a little, they would have helped the lead miners much more if they had adopted the advice of their own friends of the Liberal association and had increased the duty so as to secure the home market for our own people.


Rufus Henry Pope: While I do not like to disagree with the government in this matter, I am inclined to think as the hon. Minister of Finance might perhaps anticipate, that in the matter of these bounties he is not going to do the good that possibly be desires. Being a protectionist, perhaps I am prejudiced in tlie matter somewhat and do not see clearly how the bounty upon tins product is going to give a permanent stimulus to the situation. When we consider that o're going from Canada to the United States lias to pay a duty of $30 a ton. when we find that the duties of the United States, as they apply to the lead in its various forms of pig, pipe, bars, sheets, white and red, and all the rest of it, range from $50 to $G5 a ton, because these are the duties that are applied to lead in the United States, as against our duties of $16, $17, $12 and down as low as $3.87 per ton, which constitute the protection which we have in this country, and if we add this $15 a ton to any of these figures that I have mentioned, it will be seen that our encouragement falls far short of tlie encouragement which the United States are giving to the lead industry in that country. I do not expect that we shall realize in British Columbia that benefit that we would all like to see, under any policy of bounties or under any other policy than carries with it the absolute control of this market, and without such encouragement as to make possible tlie export of these products to foreign countries. I believe that on top of that $15 a ton we should have a duty equivalent to that of the United States. With a less duty

than that we are not going to develop this industry. Of course, the Minister of Finance understands that we, on this side of the House, are going to accept any encouragement, whether it be by bounty or otherwise ; *but we would be failing in our duty, if we did not emphasize the fact that, with $15 a ton on our side, when $30 a ton are charged for exporting lead into the United States, the producer of lead in Canada has to pay $15 a ton more to get his lead into the United States, even after this encouragement.


William Alfred Galliher: They will not take our lead in the United States at all, even if you give $60 a ton.


Rufus Henry Pope: Then if that be true, it is impossible for us to export our lead into the United States. I think that only emphasizes the statement I made a few moments ago that the government should not hesitate a moment in placing the duty dollar for dollar with that of the United States.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: Most of the lead that comes into Canada does not come from the United States, it comes as a rule from Spain.


Rufus Henry Pope: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that we buy scrap and pipe, lead from Mexico ?


William Alfred Galliher: That is principally made from Canadian ore, the pig-lead. It is our own lead, our own bullion, that is sent into the United States in bond and refined there, then brought back and put on the market here.


Rufus Henry Pope: I am obliged to the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Galliher) for the information he has given. I am more convinced than ever that it is our imperative duty to run this industry ourselves rather than let the United States run it for us. Let our people get the whole advantage of the development of that industry instead of the.United States.


William Alfred Galliher: I may point out that this government did give a bonus some two or three years ago to a refinery to refine this very lead I am now speaking of that is being refined in the United States in bond. That refinery is turning out a certain quantity. It was an experimental plant in the first instance, operating under a new process that had never been tried before. Therefore their plant is small at present, but it will be increased. The government granted them aid to help develop the lead refining industry and they experimented with the electrolytic system. They claim that it is a complete success, and the company are preparing, as I understand, to enlarge their plant to meet the growing requirements. But that takes time. So far they have not refined a great quantity of lead, one reason being the fact that they were experimenting for a considerable time.


Rufus Henry Pope: But gradually the have been improving the process until they are now in a position to enlarge their plant.


Rufus Henry Pope: The government, I think, would do better to give encouragement to a system that did not need to be conducted as an experiment. There are systems in operation in treating lead ore that do not require experiment. The hon. gentleman has just told us that they have been spending their time in experimenting.


William Alfred Galliher: Not altogether.


Rufus Henry Pope: The hon. gentleman said they had been spending their time in experimenting with these ores. If they had had proper protection they would have developed under a system that is in use every where else.


William Alfred Galliher: Let me correct the hon. gentleman. The new system they have been conducting is not only greatly in the interest of science, but it will be advantageous to the refining of ore throughout the world, because it is the best and cheapest system, and the cheapest plant that can be invented.


Rufus Henry Pope: Then the hon. gentleman argues that there is no development for that system inside of Canada, and if there is no development inside of Canada, why grant a bounty ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman is under the impression that we have granted a bounty for a particular method of refining lead, which is a mistake. We have not granted a bounty to any particular method, but we have granted a bounty on the refining of lead, and we have paid it to one refinery. There is nothing to prevent any other refinery coming in and getting the bounty, but this happens to be the only one that was established.


Rufus Henry Pope: Evidently the system of bounties has failed, it has failed in developing that single industry. You have not accomplished anything. One man says it is an experiment, the minister says they have given it to the only refinery that exists.


William Alfred Galliher: I may point out something that the hon. gentleman knows, as he is interested in this industry. The lead smelters of the country have not been running even to supply the refinery that was running last year. The fact that they were shut out of the American market for selling their ore is responsible for the present condition. It is not a question of the bounty failing to encourage the industry.


Rufus Henry Pope: Does the hon. member think that the company would prefer a strong system of protection to a system of bounties ?
Mr. GALLIHER, I might answer the hon. gentleman by repeating expressions

of opinion made by people interested in tills matter, and who are better able to give him information than I am. I may tell the hon. gentleman that the question of protection in the readjustment of duties was not the only question considered at these . meetings. There was also the question of a bonus. Some favoured one and some favoured another, but I am bound to admit that the majority came to the conclusion that a readjustment of the duty would be better. Any one who will take the trouble to read my speech on the budget will know that I am stating exactly what took place.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Why did they come to that conclusion ?


William Alfred Galliher: Like all mass meetings of that kind, it was not all composed of men of the same political thought ; some came to that conclusion possibly because of their political belief and others came to a different conclusion, but at all events the majority came to that conclusion.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Purely political motives.


William Alfred Galliher: No ; I do not wish to convey that idea at all.


Robert Laird Borden: Does not the hon. gentleman (Mr. Galllher) himself think that a protective customs tariff is really the best for this industry ?


William Alfred Galliher: Let me answer the questions one at a time. When the Minister of Finance announced in the budget speech that the government did not see its way to grant the request of the lead miners for an increased duty on pig-lead and corroded lead, it was intimated that later on something might be done to aid the industry in the way of a bounty. I set to work, and the matter was brought before the different associations in my county, and I received numerous telegrams urging me to place before the government as strongly as I knew how the desirability of assisting this industry by means of a bonus. After the announcement of the bounty, on the-Sth of July, I received telegrams from the boards of trade, the owners, the associations, men of different political views ; but all interested in the welfare of the lead industry, and these telegrams show that the people most affected are well satisfied with the action that has been taken by the government. Some of these telegrams are complimentary to myself, and for that reason I will dispense with them. But I would like to read one which, after thanking myself and those from the province who supported me in obtaining this bounty, winds up by saying :
We appreciate the result on the lead question and can say that the country is rejoicing at action of government. Please convey thanks to other members of British Columbia.
Signed, Geo. Alexander, S. S. Fowler, G. L. Parker, executive committee. L. Pratt, secretary of Silver Lead Association.
I have other telegrams conveying the appreciation of the people on the action of the government in granting this bounty. I think this expression of opinion from the people interested is probably the best answer I can give to my hon. friend.


James Clancy: Does that indicate that they prefer a bounty to a protective tariff ?


William Alfred Galliher: When the men who own the mines, and who have their capital invested, and who are most deeply interested ; when these men say that the country is rejoicing at the action of the government, it ought to convince members on both sides of the House that they are satisfied.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that if protective duties had been put on instead of bounties, he would not have received those telegrams of rejoicing ?


William Alfred Galliher: I can only speak of what I have received.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no desire to enter into the general question of the relative advantage of duties and bounties at this1 late hour, but there is one view I might suggest as bearing on the question. Suppose we had put some moderate and reasonable customs duty on these articles greater than we now have, these duties would only operate as a protection to the extent of the quantity consumed in the home market, which is about 14,000 tons. The bounty will apply to the output of 33,000 tons, and therefore the benefit of the bounty covers a larger output. I can imagine that even a man who is a protectionist may perhaps see that the bounty system, for the present at all events, might help him better than customs duties. I do not want to argue the merits of the two systems, but merely to call attention to the fact that while, by the protective system, the benefit would only be on the quantity consumed in the home market, by the bounty system the benefit is received on the total output.


Mr. WILSON.: How long has the lead industry been in operation ?


William Alfred Galliher: The Hall and Slocau mines turned out lead, copper and silver as far back as 1885.


Uriah Wilson: How long have they had bounties ?


William Alfred Galliher: This is the first bounty that has ever been granted. Prior to this time the ore was bought by the American smelters to the extent that we could supply it, but then this Lead Smelter Trust of the United States was formed, and it was formed, as we firmly believed in. that country, for no other purpose than to close up the industry in Canada, and now they won't purchase our ores.


Uriah Wilson: When you made your speech in the House, did you not ask for protection instead of bounties ?


William Alfred Galliher: If the hon. gentleman will refer to the ' Hansard ' of the 29th of April, he will find my speech there, and he need not ask me to depend on my memory.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do I understand the hon. member (Mr. Galliher) to say that we do not get any of our lead from the United States?


William Alfred Galliher: We get no United States produced lead.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We got from the United
States 5,895,174 pounds of dry and white lead.


William Alfred Galliher: Not one pound of that is produced from ore mined in the United States.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That information is not given in the returns, but at any rate it comes in from a country that has a high duty against us. I would think that the instructions which the hon. member (Mr. Galliher) would have regard to would be the instructions given by his own Liberal Association, and I have before me a copy of the resolution which they passed on the 10th of January, 1903, and which says :


ROSSLAND LIBERAL ASSOCIATION.
Robert T.: Grigor,
President.


Roland A.: Laird,
Secretary.
Rossland, B.C., January 10, 1903.
Sir.-I have the honour to inform you that at a largely attended meeting of this association held last night the following resolution was adopted :-
Whereas since the present Canadian tariff was framed, changed conditions have placed Canada in a position to more than supply the lead necessary for home consumption and her mines are now. through the smelters marketing the bulk of their lead product in China, Japan and Europe, while German lead and Mexican lead manufactured in the United States is being marketed in Canada, supplying the most of the demand, to the detriment of the mines, smelters and refineries in Canada ;
Whereas practically all the silver-lead mines are closed, due to the decline in the world's price for silver and lead, in consequence of which the vast amount of money invested in the development of these districts is now lying idle, and workmen, whose wages were as high as any in the United States and higher than the average paid in Missouri, Mexico and Australia are unemployed, and
Whereas the Dominion government has, through some of its members, stated that tariff revision would be made when changed conditions justified it, therefore,
Be it resolved that we, the members of the Liberal Association of Rossland, do heartily endorse the action of the silver-lead miners and do especially urge upon the Dominion government the establishment of such duties as will secure for Canadian mines the benefits of the entire home market and will enable resumption ot work in the many mining districts of British Mr. GALLIHER,
Columbia which are now suffering from great depression.
Be it further resolved that copies of these resolutions be immediately forwarded to the members of the Cabinet, Senate and House of Commons.


RONALD A. LAIRD.
[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
I presume that at least one of these was sent to their own member, and I take it that these w>ere the instructions given by the Liberals of that constituency to him as their representative. Now he pretends to say that be is satisfied with the bounty, and hie does not say one word in the way of asking the government to put a duty on lead, which his own association asked for, hut he says they are quite satisfied with the bounty. After the budget speech was made, and the statement of the Finance Minister that he did not consider it wise to change this session the duties upon this or any other article, I presume that they were compelled to be satisfied with the half measure which they got, though they did not believe, and do not believe to-day, in my judgment, that this is the best way to help the lead-mining industry in that country. The people of British Columbia, as represented by the resolution passed in the legislative assembly on the 11th June, 1902, and by thie resolution of the Rossland Liberal Association-and this is only one of several resolutions in the same line passed by Liberal associations-were in favour of a customs duty and not a bounty on lead. Yon give them, not what they believed was the best, but only a half measure of relief.
William Alfred Galliher: I do not think that those who sent me here, whether they were Liberals. Conservatives, labour men, or anybody else, have any cause to complain of my action in forwarding their interests on this lead question. I am quite satisfied to leave myself in their bauds in that respect. I hope the hon. member does not think that I sat idle until the budget speech was delivered, and did not urge what I was sent here to urge.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. gentleman think that the people who sent these representations knew what they wanted?
Mr. GALLIHER, I represented to this government exactly what I was sent to represent. The hon. member knows very well that a member from any district, on approaching the government to obtain a concession of any kind from them, comes armed with all the strength he can possibly command, if he understands his business. That will account, probably, in some measure for the resolutions which I came armed with.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are the resolutions merely a bluff to strengthen the hands of the hon. gentleman ?


William Alfred Galliher: You can form your own opinion of them. We do these things

pretty much as I thluk they are done in all parts of Canada, and in all parts of the world, for that matter.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: Might I ask the hon. member if he has changed his opinions ?


William Alfred Galliher: Will the hon. member be kind enough to allow me to answer the hon. member for East Grey, and then I will be only too happy to answer any question he may put. The hon. gentleman quoted the resolution of the Rossland Liberal Association, and said that they had received not what they asked for, but something they were compelled to take, and that they did it simply because they could not get anything else. I will read a telegram which I received on the 8th of July, the day these resolutions were placed on the Order paper. This telegram is addressed to myself :
Rossland, B.C., July 8.
W. A. Galliher, M.P.,
Ottawa.
We congratulate you, Senator Templeman, provincial members and the government on the splendid stand taken on lead question.
This is signed by the president of the Liberal Association. I could quote considerably more literature to my hon. friends if they wished it, to prove that the people are satisfied. In fact, they never expected to get $15 a ton for their lead, and they are very pleased indeed that it has been granted.


Robert George Macpherson: Just to set this matter possibly a little more clearly before the House, I may say that I had the privilege of attending, in the city of Vancouver, one of the first meetings held of the silver lead men of British Columbia. They were not themselves a unit as to the best method by which the difficulties they were labouring under could be got over. The question of a bonus was largely discussed. The general consensus of opinion of the lead men was that a bonus would not be granted. In view of that, they thought they had better later on ask for a higher protective duty. In the home market last year we consumed 12,000 tons, or 24,000,000 pounds. The first lead shipment in British Columbia was in 1887. The shipments from that date down to last year were as follows
Pounds.
1887		 204,800
1888		 674,500
1889		 165,100
1890	 nil.
1891	 nil.
1892		 808,420
1S93	 2,135,023
1894		  5,662,523
1895		 16,475,464
1896		 24,199,977
1897		 38,841,135
1898		* 31,693,559
1899		 21,862,436
1900		 63,358,621
1901		 51,582,906
1902		 22,536,381
You can easily see from this immense lead production and our small consumption, what a small market we have for lead in Canada. In 1901 the lead combine was formed in the United States, and in 1902 our total production of lead was exactly our consumption, possibly a little less. Our total production was 22,536,381, and we consumed that year 24,000,000 pounds. We have had practically our market to ourselves.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How can the hon. gentleman say that when we brought in 15,000,000 pounds of foreign lead


Robert George Macpherson: Yes, but the majority of that is Spanish lead. But we sold at the same time 22,536,381 and consumed 24,000,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the hon. gentleman says we had our own market. Evidently we had not.


Robert George Macpherson: We sold enough to supply our own market and had to buy some besides, but the reason was we were not getting a proper price for our lead, not having an open market for it. The hon. member for East Grey has quoted the Liberal Association of Rossland. Let me quote to him the New Denver ' Ledge,' which is a strong Conservative organ and one of the most representative mining papers in British Columbia. On July the 16th the ' Ledge ' published the following article
Outlook Much Brighter.
Prospects of good times in the silver-lead camps of the Kooitenays have greatly brightened since the assurance has come from Ottawa that the Dominion government will give aid to the producers in the sum of $500,000 a year. From all sections where lead mines are being developed, words of cheer are heard, and there is no doubt that mines which have in recent years been opera ted only in the development stage, will in a short time be thrown open and ore turned out at their full capacity.
Senator Turner, principal owner of the Sullivan group, in East Kootenay, is credited with saying to the Cranbroolc ' Herald ': * The proposed bonus will enable Sullivan Company to start mine immediately and bo complete the smelter this season,'
Reports of a like nature come from other camps. J. L. Parker, of the North Star mine, says :
'As long as the bonus lasts, we may consider that we will have good times for the following reasons :
1st. The mines that are in a shipping condition. but which are not shipping, will naturally ship their ores.
2nd. Those in a developing condition, but not developing, will naturally develop.
3rd. Those properties which have a favourable surface mineral condition, will naturally either have some work done on them, or the owners will find a more favourable market for them than has been the case the past two years.
4th. Encouragement will be given to the prospector to hunt 'for new finds, probably resulting in the later opening up of a new district or two.

5th. The wage expenditure will return to the old standard of about $2,500,000 per annum instead of less than $500,000.
6th. The merchants, who have been reducing their stock, will replenish it, resulting in the merchants east getting fresh orders, and giving the railroads more work.
7th. The smelters will have live furnaces, instead of dead ones, and this will give employment to more men, and through this certain ores available for fluxes can be used and purchased by them which would otherwise have to remain in the ground. The latter feature is an important one, giving employment to more men.
The amount of bonus to be distributed in ilve years time on the basis of $15 per ton, will be about $2,500,000, and as the mine-owners will spend $10,000,000 more during the same period, than they would have done under the past conditions, it will he seen that the government aid, although tardy, will mean a direct aid to the district of two million five hundred thousand dollars, besides an indirect aid of ten million.


John A.: Finch is reported as saying : 'We expect to start up the St. Eugene this summer by reason of the benefit from the lead bounty. We formerly worked about 200 men on the property and were shipping 3,000 tons of lead concentrates per month. The concentrates were running 65 per cent lead.'


Bryon N.: White of the 'Slocan Star' said : ' The mine-owners are getting all they asked for from the Dominion government. The effect of the bonus will certainly he beneficial. The Slocan Star, which was shipping to the American Smelting and Refining Co., and suspended shipments some time ago has entered into a contract to ship to the Trail smelter and will start shipments soon. It is reported the bonus will be paid only on lead oire mined, smeite.1 and refined in Canada. By shipping to the Trail smelter we will receive ail the bonus coming to us.
I have no doubt the increased output stimulated by the bonus will take up all of the grant of $500,000 per annum made by the government. Indirectly the bonus will be of still greater benefit to the province as it will bring several millions of British and American money into the Slocan and Kootenay lead mines for investment.
I could go on quoting page after page from British Columbia papers all to the same effect. As a matter of fact the lead mine-owners more than once asked this government for aid, and they appreciate the aid now given which will bring the price of lead to a certain figure. They do not care whether that is the result of a bonus or a duty. Lead miners in Britisli Columbia to-day without exception will tell you that $15 per ton of a bonus is much better to them than the duty first suggested.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: It is not the best thing for the country.


Robert George Macpherson: I think it is. We were suffering under great difficulties, and the people believe that their difficulties are now removed and that is all they hoped for.


Rufus Henry Pope: I am glad to see that I am Sustained in the position I am taking by an authority which the hon. member for Yale Mr. MACPHERSON.
and Cariboo must recognize as a good one. I have looked up the bon. gentleman's speeches, and I find that oil the 29th of April last he sustained me in every position I have taken. In the first place he pointed out that the great difficulty experienced was the competition of Mexican ore, mined by men who are paid fifty cents per day, and who thus enter into competition in British Columbia with men who receive from $3 to $3.50 per day. If the hon. gentleman represents the labouring men of that section, be will be disposed to think very seriously of their situation with regard to that competition. The bounty will not lessen that competition. If it is simply a question whether the miners can get enough out of this bounty to operate a certain number of mines. I find that tlie bon. member for Yale and Cariboo said in that speech :
lit was unanimously decided at the Sandon meeting that the delegation should be sent to Ottawa to present the facts to the government and to ask them to give us a duty on our lead that would be sufficient to place our miners- not exactly in that position of the American miners because we felt that we could not get that-but at all events to place them In a position so that they will be able to work their mines to advantage.
The hon. gentleman was asked what he thought would be a sufficient duty on lead and lie replied. :
What was asked was practically the Dingley tariff which is two and one-eight cents a pound on pig-lead, and two and seven-eights cents a pound 011 corroded lead. That would be adequate but X had no hesitation in using the word ' adequate.'
So you see, Mr. Chairman, that when he came fresh from his constituency and from this meeting at Sandon. which unanimously decided to ask for duties, the hon. gentleman urged this government to protect the lead industry by the imposition of duties and not by a bounty.


Peter Macdonald: I would draw the attention of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pope) that to refer to the past debate, and certainly to read from that debate is against the rules of the House.


Rufus Henry Pope: I am referring to an utterance of an hon. gentleman (Mr. Galliher) on the same subject, and here is a clause that will interest you, Mr. Chairman :
An adequate bounty would tide us over our difficulty

I said that probably that might be the result of our bounty system, and the hon. gentleman from Yale and Cariboo agrees with me.	That was the speech on the
budget debate, made when he came fresh from his constituents :
-for a time until the government could see its way clear to give us at least a fair, proportionate and reasonable adjustment of duties, so that our lead products, at all events, would

be on the same basis as other products of Canada.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman should be frank enough to admit that while he and I are, to a limited extent, satisfied with the half loaf we are receiving, it is quite clear that we are not receiving what the people of that country asked for and wliat he himself said he was instructed to ask for here. So, there will be nothing satisfactory to this industry until it receives the adequate protection the hon. gentleman referred to-equal to the Dingley tariff, or something better. It is not necessary for me to pursue this subject further. The hon. gentleman and I quite agree, and I am delighted, as a man living in the east, with some interest in that western country, but not understanding that industry as one living there would-for I have not a scientific understanding of the question-to find that when, as I say, the government is not doing the measure of justice that the people demanded unanimously at their meeting, according to the remarks of the hon. member for Yale and Cariboo, to be corroborated by the hon. gentleman who has the honour to represent those people in this House.


Mr. BELL.: I understand that a very important feature in connection with this industry is the supply of fuel. I see that boards of trade and other associations in British Cojumbia have laid great stress on the development of the coal properties owned by the government of Canada in the Crow's Nest Pass. Of course, the intention of the bounty is to place the mining industry of British Columbia on a paying and satisfactory basis as far as possible. Might I ask the government what has been done by them to meet the views of the British Columbia Board of Trade, in which they ask that the government should select their coal lands on Morrissey Creek, and should either develop them as a government work or lease them under such conditions that it would be possible for other mining companies operating in that part of Canada to get control of the output. I made the discovery on a visit to British Columbia last fall that the fuel question there is so important that it is considered that unless it is settled, anything the government can do to foster the lead industry by a bounty might be unavailing. The industry is liable to be interrupted by difficulties in connection with mining by strikes, and would be entirely jeopardized by a serious rise in the price of coal or coke ; so much so that it has been suggested that the government should take steps which would guarantee a sufficient supply of coke or coking coal at a fixed minimum price. I know that this is not related directly to the question of bounties, but, as it is essential that the fuel question be put upon a safe basis before the benefit can be expected
from the bounties, may I ask what attention has been paid to the representations on this point of parties who speak on behalf of the mining industry and especially of the lead mining industry?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In connection with representations made to me and my colleagues as to the lead industry, I think I am correct in saying that nothing was said as to the fuel question. It may be that something was said to my colleagues on that point. The question of developing coal lands might come more directly before the Department of the Interior. But the gentlemen who composed the lead deputation did not represent that they were under any disadvantage in connection with the fuel question. As to the general question of doing something in the way of developing the government coal lands, that is worthy of attention, and will, on doubt, engage the attention of the Minister of the Interior.


Mr. BLAIN.: If I understand the case correctly, when the proposal was first presented to the government by the hon. member for Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Galliher), he stated in the House that three separate meetings were held in the west in connection with the lead mining indutsry. The first was held in Sandon, and a resolution was passd asking the government to increase the tariff. After that meeting had passed this resolution unanimously, another meeting was called at the city of Nelson, and the resolution which had been passed at the meeting at Sandon was repassed by the meeting of miners assembled at Nelson. And the third and final meeting was held in Sandon, and resolved unanimously that the government should be called upon to put a tariff on lead, and not a bounty. After the Minister of Finance made his statement in the House, the hon. member for Yale and Cariboo received telegrams from the mining interests in the west calling upon him to urge the government to reopen the question, not to decide in favour of a bounty, but to call upon them to raise the 'duty. Surely there cannot He any doubt that the men engaged in mining in the west are not in favour of a bounty.


William Alfred Galliher: Did I state that ?


Richard Blain: Did the hon. member state it ? I will read that part of his speech.


Peter Macdonald: I will have to take objection to this reading. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Galliher) does not deny that he said what was attributed to him, and, if he does not deny it, that is just as effective as if the report of his statement were read. The speech referred to was made on the budget. It is part of a past debate, and I do not think it should be opened.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If you would declare, by your ruling, whether the hon. gentleman

(Mr. Galilher) said it or not, we should be satisfied.


Peter Macdonald: I have ruled. The hon. gentleman can't refer to a former debate.


Richard Blain: I understood that in a discussion of this kind we could make reference to statements made in a debate on the same question.


Peter Macdonald: Let me say how that is. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) can go on and use an argument used during the debate on the budget, but it should be used independently, without reference to that debate, and without reading from the report of the debate. To read from past debates is distinctly out of order.


Richard Blain: I do not wish to violate any rules, Mr. Chairman, and, will not attempt it, but what I do say is that, as the House understood, the request from British Columbia made by miners and those interested in the lead industry was unanimous, and it was that the government should place a tariff on this article; and in no case did the hon. gentleman (Mr. Galliher) or any representative from the! west call upon the government-and in no case, I think I may say, did the representatives of the west eall upon the Finance Minister-to place a bounty on lead, until they had received the statement of the government that it would be impossible to put a tariff on lead, but that they might reach the case with a bounty. After the statement made in the House by the Finance Minister, telegrams were sent from the lead mining industries in the west to their representatives here asking them to use their influence not to have a bounty, but a duty.


William Alfred Galliher: I deny that in the form in which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) states it.


Richard Blain: With that denial I think I shall be permitted to read what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Galliher) said :-
I have received numerous telegrams, and resolutions from hoards of trade both in the territories and throughout the entire province of British Columbia, urging upon me that I should ask the government to reconsider the question of the adjustment of duties, so far as lead is concerned.
Mr. GALLIHER, But the hon. gentleman added that I had said not to put a bounty on it. That is what I denied, and that is not in my speech.


Richard Blain: As I understood the Finance Minister's statement, and I am sure the hon. member understood it in the same way, it was that there would be some resolution In the House this session that would meet, or make an effort to meet, the demand from the west In respect to the mining Industry. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Galliher) will not deny that.	1


Edward Frederick Clarke: 


William Alfred Galliher: I will not deny anything that I said.


Richard Blain: When the statement was made

Jlr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, Allow me another word. When an hon. member is charged with having made a statement, and that hon. gentleman says he did not make It, the question must there and then cease; the statement of the hon. gentleman must be accepted. And bere Is what the rule says with regard to a previous debate
No member in speaking can refer to anything said or done in a previous debate during the same session.


Robert Laird Borden: That rule is qualified in many ways, Mr. Chairman, and the rule that you have laid down on the other point, perhaps, is not expressed as accurately as it ought to be. If two lion, gentlemen have the same personal knowledge of the same question, one is not required to accept the statement of the other, for the rule would apply to both, and each would have to accept the other's statement. Thus, the rule applies only to cases within the personal knowledge of one and not of the other, according to my understanding. As to the rule respecting a previous debate, as it is laid down In May-I am not familiar with it in Sir John Bourinot-it is not quite so broad, it seems to me, with all deference to your opinion.


Peter Macdonald: I quoted the very language.


Robert Laird Borden: I am speaking of the rule in May, which I had occasion to examine recently. For example, if the Minister" of Finance, on motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means should make his budget speech, and the committee should rise; and if, later in the session, he goes into Committee of Ways and Means for the purpose of amending the tariff, it is competent, on any resolution then discussed, to refer to the budget speech, because you are dealing with the same subject and by the same procedure. That is very much the case here. The Minister of Finance dealt with this question of the lead duty, which was dealt with by hon. members in that debate. Now, the hon. minister, though not going into Committee of Ways and Means, is practically doing the same thing in bringing down resolutions with regard to bounties. I should think it would involve us in some difficulties in conducting the debates of the House if, on resolutions of this kind, we were not allowed to refer to the budget debate.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, I cannot agree with the bon. gentleman (Mr. Borden. Halifax). If there is a proposition placed before the House, and that proposition is discussed and finished either by defeating it or by adopting it, that discussion becomes a past

debate to all intents and purposes. A single resolution in Committee of Supply becomes a past debate when that resolution is decided by the House; otherwise we would have all the resolutions and questions so mixed up that we could not tell what was a past debate and what was a present one. I do not think that May puts the construction upon it that my hon. friend has said.


Robert Laird Borden: I have a different opinion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Supposing we are dealing with a Bill and a motion is made for the second reading, which practically affirms the principle, and that motion is carried. According to your interpretation that would be a past debate. If that Bill comes back to this House and we go into committee, and you rise several times and report progress, every time we go into committee again we are at perfect liberty to refer to any discussion that took place on that Bill, because we are dealing with the same subject.


Peter Macdonald: If the hon. gentleman will examine the rules he will find that that rule does not apply to Bills. A Bill is considered a subject * from the preamble to the last section of it, and consequently^ can be referred to from time to time. But a proposition in the form of a resolution or anything of that kind comes under the rule that I have expressed. The rule in reference to a previous debate is found on page 426 of May, in a foot note :
The rule, however, does not apply to the different silages of a Bill, but it does apply to all other cases.


Richard Blain: I submit at once to the ruling of the Chair. But I would like to have an understanding with the hon. member for Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) on this question. Might I ask the hon. gentleman if, when he came to the House with a request from the lead-mining interests of the west, their request was not a unanimous one asking that the government place duties upon the lead-mining interests ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Mr. Chairman,


Richard Blain: I beg the minister's pardon, I did not ask him a question.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I did not want to interpose, but my hon. friend did not seem to think it was necessary to answer it.


Richard Blain: Whether the minister thinks it is necessary or not, I thins, it is necessary. This is a question that the committee should thoroughly understand. It is not enough for some members of the committee to say that the lead-mining interests of the west are satisfied with this bounty, when the fact is that the leadmining interests of the west did not ask
l'or any such bounty. The lead-mining interests of the west called upon the government, through their representatives, for a duty to be placed upon lead. What I ask now from the hon. gentleman is whether I misunderstood the representations made by himself in this House. Am I correct in understanding from him that the lead-mining interests of the west, meeting at three separate places and at three separate times, passed unanimous resolutions calling upon the government to place a duty upon lead?
Mr.jGALLIHER. I do not think the hon. gentleman will accuse me of making any statements in my speech that were not true. My statements are there, and the hon. gentleman can read them for himself.


Richard Blain: The hon. .gentleman from Burrard (Mr. Macpherson) says they are satisfied. Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to answer my question, whether the mining interests in the west called upon him as a representative to ask this government for a bounty, or whether they called for a duty upon lead?


Robert George Macpherson: I said that at a meeting held in Vancouver, after the meeting held in Nelson, they adopted a resolution unanimously asking for a duty. But I can tell the hon. gentleman that they were not by any means unanimous in their branches, whether it should be a duty or a bounty. I say further, that had' the lead men any suspicion that they would receive a bounty of $15 a ton there would never have been a question of duty at all.


Uriah Wilson: So great a bounty.


Robert George Macpherson: Yes, because it is a bounty that is quite sufficient. Now, I can tell the hon. gentleman that he could not go into the Kootenay country and make them feei bad by telling them they ought to have a duty aud not a bounty, because they are all very well satisfied.


Rufus Henry Pope: We will try you later on that.


Robert George Macpherson: You will alwavs find us doing business at the old stand. '


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman says that if the lead-mining interests of the west had understood that a bounty of $15 a ton could be secured from the government they would not have asked for a duty. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman this : After the Finance Minister had made liis statement in the House that a bounty would be placed upon the lead-mining interest, how does it happen that telegrams were sent from the lead interests in the west to the members here calling upon them to ask the government to put a duty on lead? How did that happen if they were so well satisfied? The hon. member for Yale made that statement in the House.


Robert George Macpherson: I received a telegram at the same time from the Mining Association at Victoria asking me to urge for a bounty of $8 a ton. Now, what does the kon. gentleman make of that ?


Richard Blain: I venture the statement now that the kon. gentleman cannot produce a telegram from the lead-mining interests in all the western country calling upon this government for a bounty in preference to a duty upon the lead-mining interest.


Robert George Macpherson: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to mean that what I say is not true ?


Richard Blain: I am not responsible for the construction that the hon. gentleman puts upon it. I did .not say that. I make the statement, and I make it without fear of contradiction, because I had the privilege of interviewing some of the lead-mining men, when in British Columbia, and, while I do not assume to be as familiar with the question as hoa. gentlemen representing that district, the demand there was for a duty, and that the mining men called upon the governemnt for a duty, so that they would have possession of the home market. Nothing that is in the correspondence, nothing that is in the public press of the west, nor in any resolution can warrant the hon. gentleman in the statement that the lead mining interest wanted the government to put a bounty on lead. The one request from the west is, and always has been, that the government should place a duty upon lead.


Frank Oliver: I represent a section of the west, and I may say that I received a number of letters in regard to the position of the lead industry, and in no case was a question of duty mentioned. They . asked for assistance to the lead industry, but they did not mention the kind of assistance that they wanted.


Richard Blain: May I be permitted to ask the hon. gentleman if in the correspondence there was any demand for a bounty ?


Frank Oliver: No.


Richard Blain: Will the lion. gentleman make the statement now, that the lead mining interests would be as well satisfied with a bounty as with a duty ?


Frank Oliver: Unless the lead mining interest is perfectly crazy, I would say, certainly. Considering that we import some 20,000,000 pounds of lead, and that we produce two or three times that much, I do not see, myself, how the lead mining industry is going to be substantially or permanently benefited by the imposition of a duty. If the output has to be exported in order to be marketed, certainly a duty cannot affect the price of that part which has to be exported. If the larger part has to be exported, the Mr. BLAIN. .
price of the larger part is not going to be affected by the duty. I may say, further, if it is a matter of information, that I discussed this lead question with a gentleman who represented himselfi as the representative of the mining industry in British Columbia, and his proposal, as given to me, was, that they wanted an increase of duty, and that they wanted a bounty also.


Rufus Henry Pope: That is right. That is business.


Frank Oliver: But neither he nor an/ other person else that I ever spoke to in regard to this question, or whoever spoke to me in regard to it, pinned his faith ou any particular method. Anything that would produce the result was what they wanted, and as I understand it, the amount of the bounty that is being given is considered sufficient to produce the result. These gentlemen, now knowing the amount of the bounty that is being given, have, through their representatives here, declared themselves satisfied. It does not make any difference whether at not, at some time in the past, the lead mining interest of British Columbia expressed a preference for one form of assistance or another. Now that they know the amount of the assistance that they are getting, and now that they have expressed themselves as satisfied through their representatives, surely the House ought to be satisfied.


Richard Blain: That cannot be a correct statement of the case. The lead mining interest had three meetings in the west prior to this session of parliament, first at Sandon, then at Nelson, and then again at Sandon. At no one of these three meetings was a resolution passed calling on the government to place a bounty upon lead, but at each and all of these meetings a unanimous resolution was passed calling upon the government to place a duty upon lead. If that be the case, I assume that the lead mining interests meeting in convention knew what they wanted. I do not think it is fair for the kon. member for Alberta to get up now and say that they are satisfied with a bounty. When the representation was made to the govern-men, during this session, calling upon them to place a duty upon lead, and when a statement was made by the lion. Minister of Finance that 'a bounty would be placed upon lead, how did it come that the representatives of the mining interests of the west, having read the hon. minister's statement. sent telegrams, down to their representatives, calling upon them to ask the government to put a duty on lead ?


Frank Oliver: The reason is, that they did not know the amount of the bounty that was going to be given.


Richard Blain: That is the answer, is it ? However, I will not pursue it further.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I was just going to call attention to the fact that

this proposition is one to aid the lead industry. The whole House is well acquainted with the circumstances connected with it and with the conditions of the market. I think all parties are agreed that this is an industry to which some relief in some way should be given by parliament. Well, now, as to whether the men engaged in the production of lead themselves wished this relief to be given by way of a duty or by way of a bounty, .it seems to me, need not concern us very much. I understand that what has been said is correct. I understand that they would like to have a bounty, and that they would also like to have a duty, that they would like to have both, as 1 understood in some interviews I had with some of them. I have not the slightest doubt that the earliest representations made were for duties, but the government are not bound to accede to all the demands that are made upon it. The government are bound to give them a candid hearing, and most courteous treatment, and to weigh the suggestions that are put before them, and having done that in this case, the government have decided to assume the responsibility of the course which they now propose. Therefore, this is aside from the question as to what suggestions were made to the government. The government recognized that the whole country was interested in this industry, and might fairly be called upon to do something to bear part of the burden of encouraging that industry. They have decided that the best way to do that, in their opinion, is in the form of the proposition now before the House. If I were to express an opinion myself in reference to the bonus, I would view it, that probably, when they urged us strongly for duties, they had not anticipated that the government might see its way clear to propose to the House such a large bonus. From the information I can get, strengthened by the telegrams read by the hon. member (Mr. Galliher), it would seem that all parties interested are satisfied. I would hesitate to give my opinion as to which form is the better, because the men interested ought to be the best judges, but. looking at it from my standpoint, I would say that they must be better satisfied with a bounty than they would be with a duty, for the reason that if a duty were put on, it would have to go by a roundabout process before it could reach these men and benefit them.


Rufus Henry Pope: It would be permanent.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I do not know about its permanency either, but the hon. gentleman will agree with me that the benefit would be by a roundabout process, because it means the raising of duties on many articles of commerce that are a second or third remove from where we are applying the relief directly. You would need to have adjusted the duties in these two or three different points, before these men would get the benefit, but the result of the bounty is, that now these mines are opening
up, development has commenced, and you have an immediate relief which you could not have had the other way. Whether they would prefer to have a duty or not I cannot say. But it strikes me that if the committee sec- fit to approve of this resolution, it would be a direct relief to the industry. No one in the House seems to object to the resolution itself ; the only discussion is as to which is the better way and this being the proposi- . tion of the government, it seems to me that it would be well for us to adopt it.


Robert Laird Borden: I think so, Mr. Chairman, and as the Minister of Customs says, there is no one here objecting to it. It is fortunate indeed in that respect, that we have not present these earnest and consistent free traders the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, because there would be strong objection, I have no doubt, if they knew that the Finance Minister was introducing this resolution, particularly as the Minister of Customs has pointed out, that this is a direct way and not all indirect way of putting money into the hands of these heartless corporation against whom we used to indulge in such tirades in days gone by.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I never did that.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Customs has pointed out that this bounty puts the money into the pockets of the lead miners in a direct way, but the Minister of Trade and Commerce used rage throughout the country because as he alleged money was put into their pockets in an indirect way. The merit of this proposition, according to the Minister of Customs is, that it puts money into their pockets in a direct way, and therefore, every one ought to be satisfied, even the earnest free traders on the other side of the House who apparently do not recognize that bounties are the most extreme forms of protection.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Did I say anything about putting money in any one's pocket.


Robert Laird Borden: Oh, yes.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think not.


Robert Laird Borden: Immediate relief -direct relief-surely the minister has not forgotten what he said a few minutes ago.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I certainly did not say that.


Robert Laird Borden: The whole question has been summed up by one British Columbia authority in these words :
No bonus without duty will relieve the competition in our domestic markets from the product of cheap foreign labour, and the anomaly would be presented of a highly bonus-seid Canadian miner selling his products in the markets of the world while the greater part of his home market is reserved for the produets of foreign countries.



That is the way in which it is viewed mi some quarters. However, as the Minister of Customs has said, in the absence of the distinguished cabinet ministers I have named, there is no one in the House who seems to be specially opposed to this resolution, and probably under the circumstances it might be passed.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend must remember that in matter of parliamentary procedure, and in the enactment of statutes, it is the latest statute that always governs and by it all the others are wiped out; in like manner the latest resolutions and telegrams from the miners of British Columbia wiped out all the others.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I was surprised to hear the Minister of Customs express himself as he did. He treated this whole question as a matter of expediency ; and as if we should satisfy the people of British Columbia for political reasons only. It would seem from his argument, that the whole object of the policy of the government is to pursue a trimming course in this matter. There is no decided policy on their part as regards free trade or protection, but each one of them seems to be trimming his sails to meet the political exigencies that may arise at the next election. There is a deplorable want of sincerity in the manner in which these gentlemen opposite treat the fiscal policy of this country. The hon. member from Vancouver read a long article from a western paper setting forth how the trade of the country was going to boom on account of the establishment of this bonus, but notwithstanding that, in my opinion the bonus system is entirely wrong. The government is working from the wrong end in this matter, and they are simply trying to postpone the inevitable. We shall have in the end to protect our industries by a legitimate form of protection that will give stability to the industries of the country. You cannot accomplish that, by this hand to mouth proposition of bonusing certain industries. In this country we need a staple fiscal policy that will encourage foreign capital or home capital to invest in legitimate lines. When the government found that we had in the western country a mining industry which needed some protection, the proper thing for the government to do was to give that industry protection in a legitimate form. Instead of that, they give a bonus of $15 a ton which apparently pleases some people, and because it pleases some people the Minister of Customs is perfectly satisfied, and he does not care whether it is taking the money out of the pockets of the people and giving us permanent benefit to the country so long as he thinks it is going to help his political party.


William Alfred Galliher: You are not objecting to the bounty.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I am not objecting to any assistance being given to any industry Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
which will help it to advance. I object to this form of assisting an industry, because I believe it will not give permanency and stability to that industry. It is the same with every other industry. We want to establish permanency. We want to put up our tariff wall so that all these industries will be perfected and carried out to their utmost in this country- Why, take the nickel industry. Nickel ore is turned out in Ontario for something like $400 per ton ; it is sent to the United States and treated and brought back here worth $2,500 per ton. Would it not be much better if we had so fostered that industry that that treatment would take place in Canada, and we would be building up our own country and inducing capital to come in, and using our wheat products of the west in feeding our own people ? That is what we want to do, not only with the lead industry and the nickel industry, but with the steel and iron industry, and almost every other industry that needs protection. And the form of protection should be such as to give permanency and induce capital to come into the country. Now, I want to read an article which I have taken from a paper.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Is it a long article ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: It is pretty long, but it is good and will do the hon. gentleman good. This article is by the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. He says, speaking against the lowering of the tariff, which was contemplated about that time :
I am only attempting to show the folly of a free trade remedy for an alleged evil.
We are frequently threatened with overproduction. and against this we must always protect by increasing our markets as far as possible. But other countries also have overproduction, and from this source our industries are sure to be crushed unless protected. Does any one suppose any iron industry in the United States could have survived an inundation from Europe occasioned by recent business stagnation in some localities on the continent. but for the tariff.
The Republican party watches primarily that the American labourer shall have employment. It is probable that during the last year or two free trade in iron would have cheapened the product to the American consumer, but a million and a half people, fed and clothed directly by wages paid by the various iron and steel manufactories, would have been again begging bread.
Unreasonable price's are always objectionable. but prices unreasonably low are more objectionable and fraught with greater hardships, primarily to the wage-earner, and, secondly, to all those who supply the wage-earner's necessities, than prices unreasonably high. Do you remember that President Harrison said again and again (for the issue in 1892 was high prices). ' There is such a thing, gentlemen, as having prices too low.' But the public did not heed the warning and we had four years of low prices.
Do you want to try this experiment again so soon ? We will have prices low enough as soon as the supply equals the demand, and the naked threat of a change of economic

policy always has had the effect to check demand more rapidly than anything else. Today consumers actually bid against each other.
It has often been pointed out that a protective policy will be a burden on the consumer ; and possibly to some extent during the building-up stages this may necessarily to some degree happen. But we have to pass through that stage, and the sooner we get past it and have the competition and the industries built up in our country, the better. Further on, using the United States Steel Corporation as an example, he says : The corporation Owns its own ore, and it therefore pays ou-t for labour directly or indirectly, every dollar exceipt what it pays in interest and dividends. It follows then that this one concern paid during the year ending June 30, 1902, directly or indirectly over $400,000,000 for labour. And what became of this money ? Most of it was spent primarily for food and raiment and material to build homes. This food came from the wheat fields of Minnesota and the Dakotas, and from the grazing fields of the south and from the sheep ranches of the far west, but it all came thence by way of the facifcorieis of New England and the Atlantic states. Nor is this all.
The farmers who received this money for food products, for cotton and for wool, spent it in turn for labour or for building material, for carpets, for clo-tlhling, or barbed wire, or nails, or other articles of consumption. The mills which ground the wheat, the packers who killed the beeves and the hogs, and the factory men who produced the cloth, paid at least 95 per cent of their gross receipts for labour.
And so these millions went on and on and on and are going still. They have cheered many homes. They have brought food to those who were starving six years ago, and they have helped, in a measure, to make us all rich. But what has the corporation done with its net profits ?
The stock of the corporation is held by more than 48,000 people. So this profit is thus divided and subdivided. And what do these stockholders do with it ? They, too, have been fed ail'd cloithed.
I speak of tfhese things only to show that the entire profit has not been lost. There are compensations, even with high prices. We have at least kept the money with us. It has not gone hence, and labour has received, perhaps niot its due proportion, but more than if the money had gone abroad.
But I believe competition is in sight. Bast year the entire rolled iron and steel product of the United States was 12,000 000 tons, of which the United	States	Sltee-1
Corporation produced less than 51 per pent. The Lackawanna Iron and Steel Company is building a plant near Buffalo, costing $26,000,000, and they propose to he able to produce a mllUtoat and a quarter tons per annum. The independent concern, with which Mr. Frick in connected, is being increased to a $20,000,000 plant. I have a letter from Mr. James Swank, secretary of "he American Iron and Steel Association, in which he says that when the plants now in process of construction are completed the of tllis countlT will be fully 24,000,000 tons per annum ; you can draw your own conclusions.
In my judgment w,e are to have competition, and it will be the kind the American people have learned to appreciate. It will be American competition, and our own1 artisans will not be forced upon the street again to beg while foreign workmen supply the limited needs of a paralyzed country.
I read this article with the object of showing you that the high protective system in the United States has proved a boon to that country. While there are necessarily some hardships in the working, it has fed and clothed their millions of workmen ; and while their prices are higher, they are able to pay their workmen higher wages. The people of the United States find that the protective system, when properly carried out, produces competition at home, which results in lower prices. That is what we want in this country. We want to establish a permanent and stable fiscal policy, which the people can have some dependence upon, instead of dribbling in bounties on one product or another, and having no definite line of action. The country would be in a very much better condition if we established some such policy and applied it to the steel industry, the lead industry and numerous other industries, which would come forward to reap the results which the hon. Minister of Customs expects them to reap from this measure, and they would have the added benefit of permanency.


Rufus Henry Pope: Might I ask the hon. Minister of Finance upon what basis he arrived at this bounty of $15 a ton ?


Uriah Wilson: They only asked for $8.
The MINISTER' OF FINANCE. They asked for $20. The lead is worth about $60 to $62, and $15 is not an extravagant allowance. If they were getting it in the form of a duty, it would not be considered as a high one.


Mr. THOMSON (Grey).: The government are granting a bounty to the manufacturers of binder twine and also to the manufacturers of steel, and they are now giving a bounty of $15 per ton for the production of lead. What are they going to do for the farmers ? The hon. Minister of Customs told us distinctly that the bounty was paid directly by the people. I assume that the farmers will have to pay the whole of it. If instead a protective duty had been imposed, that would be paid by the outsider. I purpose saying a word on behalf of the farmer, and I would like to ask the government what assistance they propose to give to help the beet sugar Industry. A large deputation this year asked for some assistance for this industry. Does the hon. Minister of Finance intend giving it any ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman is not aware apparently that that industry is already largely encouraged, or, if he prefers to put it that way, protected.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: There are two lines in which the farmers are particularly Interested. One is the beet sugar industry, the manufacturers of which are not satisfied with the amount of protection they are receiving, and the other industry is market gardening. When hon. gentlemen opposite were in opposition they expressed great solicitude for the farmer, but now they seem to think that every other industry requires assistance except those which would benefit the farmer.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Are you against the bonus ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We think that we have done a great deal for the farmer when we protect him against the adoption of a policy which would add enormously to his taxation.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: The hon. Minister of Customs said that, in the case of a bounty, the consumer had to pay the whole of it, but that, in the case of a duty, it was the foreigner who paid it. I am in favour of protecting the farmer and making the foreigner pay their duty.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I certainly never said that. Is the hon. gentleman in favour of this resolution to pay this bounty to the producers of lead and to which the farmer will have to contribute ?


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I would much prefer a duty.


Mr. CARSCALLEN.: I may mention another industry which has pleaded for protection, but without avail. A large deputation interested in the arsenic industry waited on the government last session. They had been led to believe before the election that they would be given a bounty, but they have not received it yet. That industry used to employ some 300 or 400 hands, who are now out of work.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I must take exception to the statement that these people were ever led to believe that they would get a bounty. There was no foundation for it.


Alexander Augustus Williamson Carscallen: I have read a letter of the hon. minister in which he stated, if his words had any meaning at all, that not only this government, but the local government would give a bounty.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman will not find any letter of mine dealing with the local government or promising any bounty. 1 would invite him to produce the letter, but there is none such in existence, and he has been misinformed.


Alexander Augustus Williamson Carscallen: I saw the letter myself. The hon. minister will remember that he referred directly to assistance being granted by the local government.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Produce the letter.


William Stevens Fielding: 


Alexander Augustus Williamson Carscallen: It can be produced quite easily if you will allow this discussion to stand over.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If the hon. gentleman lias any such letter, lie will And no lack of opportunity to present it. But I gave no such letter and gave no assurance whatever of any bounty.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I would infer from the remarks of the lion. Minister ot Finance that there is to be no assistance granted to the beet sugar industry or to market gardening. My constituency is deeply interested in these industries, and that is why I want the government policy to be made known.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am precluded by the rule respecting previous debates from reviving a discussion which we have already had concerning market gardeners.	-j
On section 2,


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I move that the first clause of this section be struck out and the following be substituted
Piaymienlt of the said bounties may be made from time to time -to the extent of sixty per centum on evidence of the smelter return showing that the ores have been delivered for smelting at a smelter in Canada. The remaining forty per centum may be paid at the close of the fiscal year upon evidence that all such ores have been smelted in Canada.
It goes ou then, ' if at the close,' &c.


Uriah Wilson: How did you pay the bounties before ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Upon the refined lead, which was a more advanced product.


Uriah Wilson: Why is it paid in portions ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is represented that the process by which the smelters carry on the business will not permit them to guarantee the smelting at the moment the ore is delivered. They take a sample which they assay, and pay the miner on that basis, but they do not smelt it for some time. We assume that they are going to smelt it, and so pay this sixty per cent, but we do not pay the full bounty until the ore is smelted.


Robert Laird Borden: As a matter of fact, it practically amounts to this-the smelter buys the ores after having made an assay to ascertain the value.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, and in order to have some leverage, we do not pay the bounty until the smelting takes place.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In order to carry out what I stated with respect to

the manufacture of lead by another process, I desire to insert the following :-
If at any time it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council that products of lead are manufactured in Canada direct from lead ores mined in Canada without the intervention of the smelting iprocass the Governor In Council may make such provisions as may he deemed equitable to extend the benefits of this Aiot to the producers of such ores.


Richard Blain: Does the government expect that such a process will be soon adopted ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I had an application since this resolution was placed upon the paper from some gentlemen in Toronto, who stated they were engaged in an industry by which they proposed to produce the products of lead without the smelting process. I asked for information, and they gave me the opinion of experts that it was reliable and would probably be put in operation. I thought it right to make the resolution wide enough to cover that operation as well as the smelting, if it should turn out satisfactory.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: 
Robert Laird Borden: That would be all right if you were to follow it up by the words which conclude the sentence ' by the amount of such excess.' When you say that ' such bounty should be reduced proportionately by the amount of such excess," I do not understand that.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is another question. We have a ton of 2,000 pounds and the English ton is 2,200 pounds. I think for the present the word ' proportionately had better be allowed to remain in, and before the third reading we will give it further consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: I would remind the hon. gentleman that these resolutions impose a further charge upon public revenues of the country.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, because it is limited to $500,000.


Robert Laird Borden: But it is possible to impose a charge because it might not amount to $500,000 without that.
2584	. .


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think my hon. friend Is right there. This is an important question as to the various methods, but the limitation is the same. We are empowered to go up to the sum of $500,000, but not to increase that.


Robert Laird Borden: But it might not amount to $500,000 without this additional charge.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is not an additional charge, if it goes to ores in both cases.
Resolutions reported, read the first and second times, and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 239) respecting bounties on lead.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 1.25 a.m., Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Fbiday, August 7, 1903.