1903-06-01

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 148) respecting certain trust funds of the diocese of Moosonee.-Mr. Osier.
Bill (No. 162) respecting the Hamilton and Lake Erie Power Company, and to change
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: its name to the ' Jordan Light, Heat and Power Company.'-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 164) to incorporate the Pacific Bank of Canada.-Mr. Galliher.



UNITED EMPIRE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on Bill (No. 163) respecting the United Empire Life Insurance Company.-Mi-. Thompson (Haldi-mand and Monck).
Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: I suppose this Bill merely means an extension of time for a year to make the deposit of the Finance Minister.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Bill was considered by the Banking and Commerce Committee during my absence, and personally I am not acquainted with it. But I think that is correct.


John Graham Haggart: No doubt it has been well considered, but


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I was absent from the city when the Bill was considered by the Banking and Commerce Committee. If the hon. gentlemau (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has any doubt, I will let the Bill stand. We might go on, and before the third reading I shall have an opportunity to consider the matter.


Mr. BELL.: The Bill was thoroughly discussed in committee.


John Graham Haggart: I have no objection.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: This seems quite an elaborate Bill erected on a very small foundation. I suppose the Committee on Banking and Commerce has considered whether the usual notice given in the ' Canada Gazette ' and other local papers is sufficient to cover all the amendments. But there does not seem to be very much remaining of the Bill as at first proposed. I do not know whether the attention of the Finance Minister has been directed to this.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have observed just now that instead of a very small Bill, merely extending the time for making deposit, we have quite an extensive measure. No doubt it was well considered by the Committee on Banking and Commerce. But, in view of the point that has been raised. I would suggest that we go through all the Bill but the last clause, and before it reaches another stage I can give the matter my attention.
Progress reported.



CITY AND COUNTY BANK.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on Bill (No. 172) to incorporate the City and County Bank of Canada.-Mr. Rosamond.

On section 1,
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: These are merely verbal changes and do not affect the Bill at all.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



SECOND READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 185) respecting the Canadian Steel Company.-Mr. German.


Mr. SCOTT asked :: 1.	With respect to lands voted to railway companies, and not earned, what is the area in each case which may yet, under existing legislation, he earned ?
2.	What is the area in each case respecting which the time ispecified for the earning of the land has elapsed ?
3.	What is the area now reserved in each case, if any, for companies that have failed to earn their grants within the time specified, under existing legislation, and what is the intention of the government regarding such cases ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock) :: 1.	The Canadian Northern Railway Company having constructed its line from Beaver to Gladstone and from Mafeking to Er-wood, has applied for the passage of an Order in Council passing to the company the land subsidy appertaining thereto, being for 46'70 miles at 6,400 acres per mile, and 22-16 miles at 12,800 acres per mile, making a total area of 582,528 acres applied for. The company may yet earn about 6.400,000 acres by construction of its line to Hudson Bay.
The Red Deer Valley Railway and Coal Company originally obtained a charter from the Dominion parliament to build a railway from Calgary north-easterly, and a land grant was authorized to the company of 6,400 acres per mile for a distance of about fifty-five miles. The question whether this company has. under its charter, until the 1st .Tuly, 1903, to complete the railway and if so,
whether the construction and completion of the railway by 1st July, 1903, will under the Acts and Orders in Council entitle it to the land grant is before the Department of Justice.
Acres.
Alberta Railway and Coal Company
(Lethbridge to Crow's Nest Pass)___	384,000
Alberta and Athabasca Railway Company	1,920,000
Brandon and South-western Railway
Company	 108,800
Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company (Macleod to International Boundary)	 287,552
Lake Manitoba Railway and Canal Company (Portage la Prairie to Lake
Manitoba)	 102,000
Great North-west Central Railway Company (Hamiota to Battleford).. 2,550,000
Lac Seul Railway Company	 115,200
Medicine Hat Railway and Coal Company	 51,200
Manitoba and North-western Railway Company (from Yorkton and Russell
north-westerly)	1,417,024
Manitoba and South-eastern Railway Company (from 98th mile south-easterly)	 76,800
North-western Railway Company of
Canada	 3,350,000
Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway & Steamship company
(branch to Battleford)	 582,656
Rocky Mountain Railway and Coal
Company	 384,000
Wood Mountain and Qu'Appelle Railway Company	 1,536,000
3.	A tract of land, part of which is unsurveyed, and which is estimated to contain an area of 322,500 acres, and being the tract originally set apart by Order in Council for the land subsidy to the Red Deer Valley Railway and Coal Company, is held reserved.



SALES OF BINDER TWINE.

Mr. BLAIN asked :: Who purchased the large quantity of binder twine sold since the issue of circular dated May 1, 1903, giving prices for the current year; and at what price was it sold ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Hon. H. G. Carroll) :: Names.	Pore Manilla.	King Special.	650 feet.	Rate.	<>00 feet.	Rate.	500 feet.	Rate.Moise Cocnier, club	2,000 2,100	Hi 111	
2,500 500 500 3,000	104 lot		
						
Wm. Eades							
						
Jno. McDonald	2,000	Hi	Pioneer Farmers Union	20,000	104	Names.	Pche Manilla.	King Special.	650 feet.	Rate.	600 feet.	Rate.	500 feet.	Rate.125	10f 101 10? 104	G. W. Beach, club... 	
...	1,000	Hi	2,000 400	500 100	1200	200	10?	W. S. Duffett	75	114	P. Z. Dube. . !	1,000	94100	10?	4,000	lOt	Too	10? 10|	300	300	94200	10?	150	250	io|	2,135 725	10f	000	10?	1,000 1,165	10?	io|	1,180 100	10?	10?	2,000	iii	150	10?	800	P. O'Reilly. ..	150	1,000 200	lot	1,000	9i10?	500	lOf	200	10?	150	10$	2,000	104	2,000	9^150	10?	400	10?	200	941,100 300 100	114 ]1f ill	200	101	
100	10?		
J. B. Daigle	500	li*	F. H. Sadler. .	450	Hi	50	10?	50	10?	50	94500	10? 10?	60	S W. T. Lewis.	100	114	200	10?	2,000 550 700	HI	Ilf	11*	
14,975			48,290		5,150	
							
The clubs mentioned above are clubs of farmers who sent their orders through one of their members to secure the quarter cent per pound reduction in price of ton lots, and to save freight. OFFICES OF TRANSLATORS OF DEBATES. Mr. BLAIN asked : 1.	Is Mr. D. V. Ranger the owner of the premises, No. 461 Sussex street, Ottawa ? If not, who is the owner thereof ? 2.	Who is in charge of the offices of the translators of debates, located in said premises ? 3.	Why are these translators detached from the House of Commons buildings, and by whose authority ?			The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. (Hon. James Sutherland) : 1.	The lease was made with D. V. Ranger to whom the rent is paid ; officially the department do not know any other owner. 2.	The offices are in charge of the staff of the House of Commons. 3.	For lack of space in House of Commons building. CENSUS OF RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS.- ST. JOHN, N.B. Mr. GANONG-by Mr. Lancaster-asked : Has the census commissioner, at any time since May 31, 1902, asked the enumerators for the city of St. John, N.B., to revise their re-


Hon. Mr. CARROLL.: turns, with a view to correcting errors brought to the attention of the commissioner, relatiye to the religious classification and enumeration of that city ? If so, at what date was such revision made, and with what result ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher) :: On March 16 last a letter was sent to Mr. James Dillon, an enumerator of St. John city, concerning a Free Baptist church at 170i Water street, which was entered on the schedule as having 545 communicants and a seating capacity of 494. Mr. Dillon was asked to explain how more communicants were credited to this church than the edifice could accommodate, and replying on 19th March, he said :	' The pastor of the church named
gave the number reported 594* as communicants, adhering to the custom prevailing that as long as members have not asked for letters of dismissal, while perhaps not adhering to the church, he considered them communicants. To place the matter more clearly' before you, he has on his church roll about COO members. Of that number, 300 are non-resident, and he looks upon these as members and communicants of his church until letters of dismissal are asked for.' The compilation of the religions of the people in St. John city has been carefully revised, and no error has been discovered in the work.
*The number reported on the schedule is 545.



CENSUS OF RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS- GRAND MANAN, N.B.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GANONG-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
Has the census commissioner, at any time since May 31, 1902, asked the enumerators for the island of Grand Manan, N.B., to revise their returns, with a view to correcting errors brought to the attention of the commissioner, relative to the religious classification and enumeration of the people of that parish ? If so, at what date was such revision made, and with what result ?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: No correspondence has taken place between the census commissioner and the enumerators of Grand Manan, N.B., relative to the religious classification and enumeration of the people of that parish. The compilation of the religions of the people in the Grand Manan parish has been carefully revised and no error has been discovered in the work.



CANADIAN REGIMENT OF INFANTRY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SMITH (Wentworth), asked :
1.	What at [present is the numerical strength of the Royal Canadian Regiment of Infantry ?
2.	What is the pay of non-commissioned officers and men ?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to increase the force and the pay ?
4.	Will officers of the permanent corps, Royal Canadian Regiment, who hold a first-class long course certificate, have to pass an examination
for substantive captain, under the amendment of general order No. 30, 1903 ?
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Sir Frederick Borden).: '
1.	359 all ranks.
2.
Per Diem.
Sergeant Major (warrant oflicer)	$1 25
Sergeant Major (after four years service in rank)	1	50Sergeant Major (after	eight years).. ..	1 75Quarter-master Sergeant	1	00
Sergeant instructors and drill sergeants
(on appointment)	1	00
Sergeant instructors and drill sergeants
(after three years	service)	1	15
Sergeant instructors and drill sergeants (after further three years service).. 1 25 The senior or specially selected instructor in each corps, having not less
than six years service	as	such..	..	1	25After four years service	in	rank..	..	1	50
After further four years service in
rank	1	75Sergeant drummer	
1	00Hospital sergeant	1	00Colour sergeant	1	00Sergeants	
80Corporals	
70Lance Corporals	
50Buglers	
40Buglers (under eighteen years of age).	30Privates	
403.	Will be; answered when the supplementary estimates for 1903-4 are brought down.4.	Yes.



APPOINTMENT OF ARTHUR MARTINEAU.

Mr. INGRAM asked :: 1.	On whose recommendation was Arthur Martineau appointed to the Civil Service ?
2.	On what date was he so appointed ?
3.	Had he any, and what, recommendation from previous employers ?
4.	What was his previous business or occupation ?
5.	Previous to his appointment to the Civil Service, had he been charged with any indictable offence ? If so, what was it, and what were the circumstances connected therewith 7
6.	At the time of his appointment, was the government aware, or was any member thereof aware, of any charge which had been made against him in connection with any previous business, or employment, or otherwise ?
7.	Was he appointed in accordance with the Civil Service Act ? And if not, what provision of that Act was disregarded in his appointment ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden).: 1. On the recommendation of the Minister of Militia.
2.	Temporarily. 22nd August, 1901. Permanently, 1st July, 1902.
3.	None were required.
4.	Not known.
5.	Not so far as known in Department of Militia and Defence.
6.	No.
7.	Was appointed in accordance with the law.

REBATES ON AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS. Mr. ROCHE! asked :
What amounts by way of rebates on agricultural implements exported from Canada have been paid for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1901 and 1902, to each firm so exporting ?
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. W.
Paterson) : 1900-1901.		1901-1902.
Massey-Harris Co., Ltd., Toronto and Brantford ..$49,781 59		$89,696 54
Verity Plow Co., Brantford		3,165 96	1,231 16
Cockshutt Plow Co., Brantford			1,224 98
J. W. Mann Manufacturing Co., Brockville		265 15	239 80
Frost & Wood, Smith's Falls			1,393 37
Noxon Co.. Ltd., Ingersoll.	1,361 30	
Peter Hamilton Manufacturing Co., Peterborough.	62 37	
Coulthard-Scott Co., Osha-		167 90
HAMILTON ELECTRIC LIGHT AND		CATAR-



ACT POWER COMPANY LEASE.

Mr. LANCASTER asked :: What Is the amount of rental to be paid by the Hamilton Electric Light and Cataract Power Company, Limited, for the lease of the 700 cubic feet of water per second from the old Welland canal, referred to by the Minister of Railways and Canals, in answer to the question on 27th April last, reported in ' Hansard,' on page 1859 ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The rental reserved in the lease to the Hamilton Electric Light and Cataract Power Company, Limited, of 700 cubic feet of water per second from the old Welland Canal, is $21,000 a year.



IMPERIAL BUILDING, OTTAWA.

Mr. INGRAM asked :: 1.	Does the government occupy any portion or all of the building on Queen street, Ottawa, known as the Imperial Building ?
2.	If so. what is the rent of the building so occupied ?
3.	What is the duration of the lease ?
4.	What is the annual rental paid by the government ?
5.	Who is the owner of the said building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: 1.	Government occupies all the building ; part is rented and paid for, occupied and looked after by the Department of the Interior ; the other part of the building is rented by this department for the use of the Agriculture Department.
2.	$2,250 for portion occupied by Department of Agriculture.
3.	Five years from 17th February, 1902. Part occupied by Department of Agriculture.


Sir F. W. BORDEN.: 4.	For premises occupied by the Department of the Interior, $1,950; lease expires on the 22nd August, 1903.
5.	Estate of late Charles E. Pearsons.



TENTS FOR MOUNTED POLICE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TAYLOR-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	Is J. W. Wood, or J. W. Wood & Company, of Ottawa, now furnishing any quantity of tents to the Mounted Police Department ? If so, how many, and were tenders asked for the said tent3 ?
2.	Did he, or they, supply any tents to the Mounted Police Department during the years of 1901 and 1902 ? If so, how many, and the value of same ? And were tenders asked for the supplying of said tents ?
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: 1.	No.
2.	1901, nine tents, value $348.50; 1902, twelve tents, value $269.
Tenders were not asked for these tents.



WOODS, LIMITED, OTTAWA-SUPPLY OF TENTS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TAYLOR-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	Is J. W. Wood, or J. W. Wood & Company, of Ottawa, now furnishing any quantity of tents to the Militia Department ? If so, how many? And were tenders asked for the said tents ?
2.	Did he. or they, supply any tents to the Militia Department during the years of 1901 and 1902 ? If so, how many, and the value of same ? And were benders asked for the supplying of said tents ?

[Stage Direction]
Report of unclaimed balances in the banks of Canada, 1902-3.-Hon. Mr. Fielding.

[Stage Direction]
Copies of all papers and documents connected with the enumeration of the parish of Kars, King's county, N.B., in the census of A.D. 1901 including copies of all correspondence between the Rev. Joseph McLeod, D.D., and Census Commissioner Blue, in relation thereto.-Mr. Fowler by Mr. Lancaster.
Copy of all returns from the local clerks of court, or other officers of the government, in the North-west Territories, showing number, names, occupation, residence, &c., of all persons naturalized in the North-west Teritories during

the past ten years, or any portion thereof ; as well as all other information contained in such returns.-Mr. Borden (Halifax).
Return giving:-
1.	The number of ties that have been issued in the sidings and on the main lines of the Intercolonial Railway, and charged to the capital account, for the years 1900-1 and 1901-2, and to the first of April, 1903.
2.	Also, as to the number of ties purchased between the 30th June, 1902, and the first of April, 1903. The list of names from whom purchased ; and the quality and prices paid.
3.	The number of ties that have been actually used in the track, between the 30th of June, 1902, and the first of April, 1903, and charged to ordinary maintenance.-Hon. Mr. Haggart.
Return giving:-
1.	The total number of Intercolonial freight cars in use on connecting lines on the first day of March, 1902, and the first day of March, 1903. respectively ; or the nearest dates to these that the car mileage reports are prepared ; the list of roads using these cars at the dates named, an<^ the number in use on each road ; and the number of days such cars have been in use on such roads.
2.	The number of cars belonging to connecting lines in use on the Intercolonial on the first of March, 1902, and the first of March, 1903 ; the names of the roads owning or controlling these cars, and the number of days such cars have been in use on the Intercolonial on these dates. -Hon. Mr. Haggart.
Statement showing :-
1.	The value of fruit shipped to Europe in cold storage in each of the calendar years 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902.
2.	The value of fruit shipped in cooled chambers in Europe in seasons 1901 and 1902, respectively.
3.	In what further steamers were cooling plants placed in the season of 1902, if any.
4.	In what further steamers were mechanical ventilating plants placed in the season of 1902, if any ?
5.	How much money has the government advanced to date, as bonus or subsidy to steamship companies, to induce them to put In ventilating apparatus, to enable them to carry in better condition perishable cargo, since 1896 ?
6.	How much to induce them to put in cooling plants, since 1896 ?
7.	How much to induce them to put in cold storage plants, since 1896 ?
8.	Tracings of temperatures, as recorded by thermographs placed on ocean steamers by officers of the government, (a) in cold storage chambers ; (b) in cooled chambers ; (c) in ventilated chambers, if any ; (d) in other parts of steamers, if any, naming location.-Mr. Smith, (Wentworth.)
Return showing :-
1.	How many members of the House of Commons, or ex-members of the House of Commons, have been appointed to offices of emolument under the Crown since 13th July, 1896 7 (b) What are the names of such members, or ex-members of the House of Commons ?	(c)
To what offices were they so appointed, and emoluments for same ?
2.	How many members of the Senate, or exmembers of the Senate, have been appointed to offices of emolument under the Crown since
13th of July, 1896.	(b) What are the names of
such members or ex-members of the Senate ? (c) To what offices were they so appointed, and emoluments for same ?
3.	How many members, or ex-members of the House of Commons have been appointed to the Senate since 13th of July, 1896 ?	(b) What are
the names of such members, or ex-members, of the House of Commons 7-Mr. Roche (Marquette.)
Copies of all communications addressed to the government, or to any minister, in relation to the grant of fishing rights in James bay, or Hudson's bay, to Archibald McNee, of Windsor, Ontario. Copies of all answers thereto, and any communication relating to the transfer of said lease.-Mr. Lancaster.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. HAGGART moved for :
Copy of the report of Mr. Pottinger on the inspection of ties for 1900 and 1901.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: Would my hon. friend make the motion read ' any report ' instead of ' the report ? '


John Graham Haggart: All reports.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Any or all.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN-by Mr. Monk-moved for :
Copies of all Orders in Council, contracts, documents, letters, correspondence, and papers, in connection with the purchase by the government, in or about the year 1900, of a certain lot of land in the town of Levis, for the purpose of the Intercolonial Railway, or for other purposes ; and also copies of all cheques paid out in relation to the said purchase, vouchers, receipts, &c.-Mr. Casgrain by Mr. Monk.
The PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: There is no objection to this motion at all, but my hon. friend should specify more accurately what he wants. It says ' a certain lot of land in the town of Ldvis.' Several have been purchased. Would he indicate what lot in particular he wants ?


Mr. MONK.: Perhaps there was only one lot purchased in the year 1900.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think there must have been more.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am not familiar with the matter.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Let it go, and when Mr. Casgrain comes, we will see what he wants.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The PRIME MINISTER.: Independent to the wish of my hon. friend from Wentworth (Mr. Smith), i beg to move that the order with reference to Bill (No. 80) be now called.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House resumed adjourned debate on proposed motion of Mr. Smith (Wentworth) that Bill (No. 86) to amend the Fruit Marks Act, 1901, be now read a second time.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sidney Fisher).: Explain.


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: This Bill provides for the appointment by the government of inspectors who may be called upon by the shipper or the receiver of closed packages of fruit to inspect it and mark its grade. At the present time we have inspectors, but their powers are limited to examining the fruit and stating whether it is falsely packed or not. That is of no commercial advantage. It is undoubtedly of great advantage in detecting false packing. I may say at the outset that when the Act was first proposed by the fruit growers, they wished inspectors to be appointed for the purpose of branding the apples, but they thought it would not be wise to encumber the Act with that provision at the beginning for fear of endangering its passage. Consequently they omitted to ask for it.
There are a great many advantages in having closed packages of apples or pears marked by a government inspector. It is hardly fair to ask the farmer, the fruit grower, or the packer to put on his goods a mark which may cause him to be fined. There is no other class in the community placed in exactly the same position. The Act, . when first brought into this House, did not provide that the packer must put on any particular mark. It provided that he ' may ' put on certain marks ; it was left optional. When the Act was in that position, there was no hardship. If a person put false marks on his barrels of apples, he knowingly took the responsibility on his own shoulders. But, the Act as amended last year provided that the farmer or packer must put on certain marks. If he thinks his apples are No. 1, and he puts on that mark, and they happen to fall below that standard and come under the notice of the inspector, he is liable to be fined. That is to say, the government compels the packer to put himself in a position where he is liable to be fined, which I think is not the case with any other class in the community.
By the amendment I propose, that onus would be taken off the packer. Under the present Act, the only way in which the packer can escape the onus is by marking his apples No. 2 or No. 3. I think three-fourths or nine-tenths of the apples packed last year were marked No. 2. Almost Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
any kind of apple may be marked No. 2, so long as the apples are the same all through the barrel, as there is no specification of that quality. Many of the apples thus marked were possibly No. 1, but the fact of their being marked No. 2 must to a certain extent have injured them on the market; yet the packer in many cases was afraid to mark his apples No. 1 lest he might subject himself to the penalties of the Act. I would not cancel the provision of the Act which provides for a No. 1 grade. I would rather have another provision defining the No. 2 grade; but I would take the onus off the farmer or packer of being compelled to mark his apples one or other of these grades, and I would provide that a sufficient number of inspectors should be appointed who, on the application of the packer, would take the responsibility of deciding whether his apples were No. 1 or No. 2.
It may be objected that this would cost a good deal. In my amendment I have not provided the method of payment; perhaps I should have done so. I do not for a moment propose that the government should take upon itself the cost of providing inspectors for every one who wants them ; but these inspectors would be paid as the inspectors of hides and the inspectors of many other commodities are paid, namely, by fees, made as low as would be consistent with covering the actual cost of the operation. When these fees are placed on the inspection, I am sure that there will not be an overwhelming quantity of apples to be inspected. I presume that nine-tenths of the apples that go forward are sold on consignment, and when they are so sold it is not absolutely necessary for them to be marked with any particular brand, as they are sold on their merits, and it must be a disadvantage to a man selling his apples in that way to feel compelled to brand them as No. 2. But there is a large quantity of apples, perhaps one-tenth or one-fifth of all those sold in this country, which are sold outright, by bargain sale-the way in which I think all fruit should be sold to ensure the seller getting the full value of it. If a government inspector could be called upon to mark these apples, see the position in which a farmer would be placed. A farmer has a quantity of apples to sell, and he grades them, and calls the inspector. The inspector marks them No. 1. The farmer immediately has a merchantable article which he can sell in Winnipeg or in the old country, or anywhere else. His apples have the standard brand of a government inspector, which is something of value to him, enabling him to place them on the market at their full face value, whereas at the present time he does not dare to mark them No. 1, but marks them No. 2, for fear he will overstep the mark and be fined.
The only objection which may be urged against this Bill is the cost of the inspec-

tion. I propose that that shall be paid by the farmer or the packer, so that that objection is removed. It may be said that to carry out the Act will require an army of inspectors. That will not be the case, however, because only a limited quantity of apples will require to be inspected. With proper management and care as many as a thousand barrels can be inspected in one day. I do not by any means, propose that the inspector should inspect every apple barrel, but that he should inspect the apples as they are inspected when sold in the old country-one in ten or one in twenty, as the case may be, of each brand or variety of apples. The apples may be opened up by men in the employ of the shipper, inspected by the inspector, and immediately closed up again by the shippers' employees, so that an inspector might easily in that way inspect a thousand barrels a day. It may be said that the inspection would be no guarantee of the quality of the apples, because the inspector does not inspect every barrel ; but that would be the well-understood condition of the sale-that only a certain percentage of the barrels were inspected. It would be a guarantee between the buyer and seller-whether between the farmer and the packer, or the packer and the merchant -that one barrel in every fifteen or twenty of these apples was inspected. So that 'i do not think that there is anything in the objection that this will be cumbersome. I cannot see any other valid objection why vre should not have an inspection of apples as of other commodities. We have an inspection of cheese and butter. When a man sends a cargo of cheese and butter to Montreal and there is a dispute, the inspector is called in and his verdict is binding. Why not follow' the same practice with regard to apples, which certainly require inspection just as much as butter and cheese ? We have hides inspected. A man cannot sell a hide unless it has been inspected by the government inspector. You wall find a government inspector in every city and town of the country, whose business it is to see that hides are properly examined and stamped. We have also an inspection of grain, though on somewhat different lines. This inspection of grain, as of many other goods, is paid for by the government, and costs many thousands of dollars annually ; but the inspection of fruit I do not propose to have paid by the government but by the people who ask for it. For my part, I cannot see any valid reason why this amendment should not be accepted. The fruit-growers are in favour of it. I wrote a number of prominent fruit-growers in different parts of the country, and in every case I was told that they fully agreed with me and were in favour of having this amendment put into our statutes. I wrote to Mr. A. H. Pettit, of Grimsby, who has always taken a leading part in all questions of legislation regarding fruit. Here is what he replied :
Your amendment is all right, but if I read Mr. Henderson's correctly it would annul the Inspection Act entirely. The great importance I attach to the inspection, is that being inspected and branded by the .inspector, it settles all questions as to the condition and quality, and we can never expect to make satisfactory contracts with the old country people unless wo can give them the guarantee (the inspector's brand). I have spoken to others and they all * approve of inspection and brand, with success to your amendment.
P.S.-Since writing the within, this thought strikes me. An Act for the prevention of fraud under which we are now acting is all right, but your amendment covers a more practical point. I want to sell, say 1,000 barrels of apples to an English firm, at a price f.o.b. I cannot ask that firm to accept draft unless I have some surety to offer the firm that I have fulfilled my part of the contract as to quality and condition, the inspector's brand settles that point, the all important point, sale by contract is far preferable than shipping to brokers.
I wrote Mr. McKinnon, who, ns the bon. minister knows, is another gentleman of high repute and standing, whose opinion Is respected by all who know him. He said :
Your own Bill I heartily approve, provided the buyer as well as the seller shall have the right to call for inspection and the party calling for it pays expenses.
Mr. Henderson's Bill is simply one to kill the Act in so far as it tends to make a distinct reliable Canadian brand.
I have here a letter from Mr. George Fisher. Mr. Fisher has been for years the inspector for the province of Ontario, and has always given the greatest satisfaction In his work. He is regarded by everybody as a man of good judgment. Here Is what he writes :
Yours of the 6th to hand. Your Bill providing for the official inspection of fruit is part of my contention, but I see no reason, if we pay for this inspection, which is quite right and proper, why inspectors should not be available to inspect any quantity large or small. I certainly think they should be, and this work should he done only at the request of the shipper and to serve his purposes alone, as when he requires a certificate in making a sale.
There are a number of other shippers who approve the principle of this amendment.
1 trust that the hon. minister will see his way clear to amend the Act on these lines. There are some other changes that may be made, but this strikes me as the most important.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: I am very glad to have heard my hon. friend's remarks with regard to this amendment, because I was unfortunately absent when the Bill was first brought up. At that time my hon. friend the Minister of Finance asked that the Bill should stand until my return, and I have arranged with my right lion, leader the Prime Minister that an opportunity shall be given for its discussion. I have been thinking a good deal about this amendment and discussing it with a number of other peo-



pie. There are strong objections to it. The hon. gentleman has, to a certain extent, discussed some of those objections, but I would like to put them a little more forcibly and clearly than he has done. In the first place, while the hon. gentleman read one or two letters asking for an amendment of this character, he did not state that the Fruit-Growers' Association of Ontario had discussed this Bill and appointed a subcommittee to consider amendments to the Act, but that committee had neither passed any resolution nor asked for this or any other amendment to the Act. Various opinions were expressed, and a thorough discussion of all the provisions of the Act was had, yet the Fruit-Growers' Association could not agree on any recommendation regarding any amendment to the Act. In Nova Scotia the Fruit-Growers' Association also held a meeting and discussed the proposed amendment to this Act. They all agreed upon one amendment and one only, which they thought would be in the interests of the province. That amendment was not the present one. but was to the effect that No. 2 fruit should be defined. There is now only No. 1 or xxx defined, and other fruit-growers wanted the Act to go further and define No. 2 or xx as well as No. 1. Thus these two associations practically endorsed the Act as it now stands, and I do not see that because individuals here and there have objections to the Act as it now stands, while the representative bodies of fruit-growers do not believe and cannot agree upon this or any other amendment, with the one exception I have mentioned, we should make any serious change. My hon. friend has stated that the first Act os introduced did not contain this clause.
My hon. friend is mistaken in that. There was a Bill which did not become law, and which was only tentatively introduced in 1900. That, I believe, did not contain this clause C of section 4. But the Act as originally passed did contain the requirement that the grade of fruit shall be marked upon the package, and the amendment which made that stronger still in 1902 was simply an amplification or extension of clause 0 of section 4. My) hon. friend, however, must confess that this Act as it was introduced and adopted by parliament has always contained the requirement that the grade of fruit be marked upon the package. I confess that I consider this one of the essentials of the Act. I hold that if the packer is allowed to send forward a closed package without marking on it what it contains, he will escape to a large extent the wording of this Act, and the effect of the Act- which has been very good indeed upon the fruit trade of the country-will be almost nullified. I appreciate the fact that what the hon. gentleman lias said with regard to the particular section does not militate against the argument which he put forward for the adoption of this amendment, but still


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: I want to correct the statement he made with regard to the introduction at first of the Act. Now the hon. gentleman said that he wished to have the packer relieved from the onus of designating the quality of the fruit himself. But'it seems to me that this is essential to this Act. Nobody but the packer can really grade the fruit. It is true that, under the hon. gentleman's suggestion, the inspector can go and open 10 per cent of the packages and see what they contain. But this would not inform him as to what the other packages contained. He may easily light upon ten packages in a hundred which will grade No. 1 or x x x ; but there might be other packages very inferior, that he would not light upon. Under the hon. gentleman's suggestion, not only will all the fruit in such a case be designated ns of first quality, but the government's stamp will be put upon it, and the reputation of the department of the government of Canada will be pledged to the quality of the fruit) so stamped. Nobody can grade fruit in a closed package without first opening the package, except the packer himself; and it seems to me that it is proper and right, as well as the only safe way, that the packer should have the onus thrown upon him of packing his fruit honestly and marking it exactly for what he has put into the packages. The whole object of the Act is to protect the buyer from dishonest or negligent packing. Nobody except the packer can tell what is in the closed packages, unless the inspector opens every package. The hon. gentleman himself is well enough versed iii the trade to know that it would be impossible to open every package-and that he would be the first,-and all the trade would agree with him-to object to the inspector opening every package, to judge of its contents. This is in addition to the fact that it would be a practical impossibility, to find the army of inspectors necessary to carry out the work as designated by this amendment. The hon. gentleman says that, if a fee were charged, at first at any rate, very few inspectors would be called upon to inspect and grade fruit. I dare say that such would be the case, for one season. But if the buyers judge the fruit by its marks and consider the inspector's mark as a guarantee, you may be sure that they will very soon demand' that the government inspector's grade shall be given them and the mark of the government inspector be put upon all closed packages, and so sellers will be obliged whether they like it or not, in the interest of sales, to ask for this inspection. The result must be that it will require for this work an army of inspectors, at a certain time of the year, competent men well versed in the fruit trade and in fruit growing, who at that time of the year are specially difficult to find. Hast year, there were nearly 500.000 barrels of apples sent through the port of Montreal for export alone, to say nothing of the great number sold throughout

3S14
the country on local markets. This export trade is all rushed into, I suppose, less than three months of the autumn. And, for any number of Inspectors to be set to work to inspect and grade half a million of barrels of apples in the course of three months or less, to say nothing of the large number of the internal trade which is certainly as much if not double as much, would be almost a physical impassibility. The hon. gentleman says that, acting under his suggestion of inspecting 10 per cent of the packages, an inspector could inspect about a thousand a day. That is to say, they could inspect and know what was in one hundred packages, and they would mark nine hundred without-knowing what was in them. I do not think this is at all desirable. I know it was not what the House or the country expected or wanted when the Act was passed. I must say Also that, in the working of the Act no serious hardship, I believe, has arisen to justify this very material and essential change. Now, the hon. gentleman spoke of the onus on the packer, and said it was not right that the packer should have that onus thrown upon him, that, in fact, it was practically impossible for the packer to grade fruit correctly. I know that, during the last season a very large amount of fruit was sent forward as No. 2, because, unfortunately, the season was a bad one, and a very large proportion of the fruit was actually No. 2. But I doubt very much indeed if it could be substantiated that any fruit was sent forward which a packer believed to lie No. 1, and yet marked No. 2. It is quite contrary to the spix-it of the' trade to do so, and it is not at all necessary under the provisions of the Act; for, if the fruit is honestly packed as No. 1, the packer is perfectly safe in marking it No. 1, especially when, under the Act, a certain percentage of apples not quite up to No. 1 is allowed even, when the No. 1 mark is put upon the package. I think the packers can very easily live ill) to the Act by' honestly and correctly packing; and I think the public expect that of them. The purpose of the Act was to bring that about, and it has brought it about to a very large extent. I have had very satisfactory reports from the old country as to the packing of Canadian fruit during last season, and of the condition in which the fruit has reached the market. The people have declared distinctly that this is due largely to the operation of the Act. I cannot say' from memory' which paper it was in. but I saw the statement that not long ago. one of the associations of boards in England. had gone so far as to recommend to the United States the passing of such an Act as our Canadian Fruit Marks Act, because our Act has helped the fruit trade so much that it would be to the interest of people in the trade for the United States to adopt a similar law.
I venture to think that the amendment
which is proposed would to a large extent
120J
nullify the operation of the Act, and that there would be a serious danger both to the government and to the trade of the country; because I am satisfied that no government inspection could be as accurate and as careful as that of the packers themselves, and that if the government inspector were to make a mistake and, through neglecting to turn over every package, were to put upon some bad packages his stamp of No. 1 quality', it would affect the trade much more than if a private individual were to make a mistake and were to send forward fruit improperly marked. Of course, you may say that the government inspector must not make such a mistake. But the government inspectors, like other people, are liable to make mistakes, and especially would they be liable when they did not turn over more than a percentage of the fruit, and if they did not know what kind of fruit was jn more than a percentage of the number of packages which they were marking. Now the shipper himself, we will say, is making a reputation by the way in which he marks and packs his fruit. If the government steps in and takes that place, then ihe shipper himself is no longer responsible; if anything is found wrong he can shrug liis shoulders and say, it is not my fault. The result is that he loses that great benefit which any person gets who makes a reputation for himself over his own name. I think myself that the shipper's own guarantee is worth more to him-it may not be to the purchaser-but it is worth more to the shipper than any government guarantee could be. A government guarantee woujil be looked upon as impersonal, while the shipper's own guarantee, which is one of his own creation, is looked upon as personal to that shipper. If a man does his work well and honestly, he will make a reputation for himself and get a better price for his goods and a readier sale. All this will be taken away from him if the government inspector steps in. I do not feel, therefore, that I can accept this amendment.
I would say a word with regard to .the difficulty of operation under the amendment. If the hon. gentleman's proposal were carried out, and if every package was to be opened, I do not think the hon. gentleman himself, or those whom he professes to represent, would be satisfied with the result. If it were to be undertaken, it would be practically a physical impossibility to do it. The only way to carry out such an amendment as this, it seems to me, would be for the packer to employ a government inspector to come to his packing house and stay there during the whole tine of the packing season. That would mean a great expense to him, and lead to greater evils probably than the present condition of affairs can possibly create. Now the whole intention of the Act from the beginning was, not to have our fruit inspected, but it was clearly defined and stated here in the House

that it was meant to be a deterrent, it was meant to be a sword held over the dishonest or careless packer, to force him, by fear of the penalties attached to this Act, to do what he ought to be willing to do in his own interest, in the interest of the trade and in the interest of the reputation of Canada. The condition of affairs in this trade before this Act was passed, was such as to require some such action, and parliament in its wisdom adopted the Act as it stxvl, and changed it last session to make it more stringent in this particular section and in this particular respect. I am informed by those who have been watching the operation of the Act, that it.was not only good in the first place, but that the increased stringency of section 4 has made it still more beneficial. Under these circumstances, therefore, I cannot believe the amendment to be in the interest of the trade, or in the interest of the country, or even in the interest of the packers at large. There has been no general demand for this amendment from the representatives of the Fruit Growers' Association or from the packers ; and even if it were adopted, I cannot see how it could be carried out in such a way as to improve the facilities of the trade, and carry out the intention of the Act itself. Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I must ask the House not to pass tlje second reading of the Bill.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Before the motion Is put, I desire to say a few words. I think the House, on consideration, would be in favour, if not of this amendment of my hon. friend from South Wentworth (Mr. Smith), at least of some amendment drawn on similar lines. I would say to the Minister of Agriculture that some of the fruit growers in the Niagara district find some objection to the present law in that there is no place, no locality where inspection can be expected to take place as a matter of course. My hon. friend from South Wentworth is moving in that direction in trying to get apples, to mention only that class of fruit, inspected where they are packed, or as near to the place where they are grown as possible, or to the place where they are packed and going to be shipped. I would point out to tlie Minister of Agriculture that there is no specified place where the inspection must take place. The inspectors go where they think the most apples are handled, they go to the large centres like Montreal, or Toronto, or perhaps Windsor.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE They go where they find the most fruit.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They want to do as much inspecting as possible. It would strike me, and has struck some of the fruit growers in the Niagara district, that if flic inspectors went where the fruit is grown, uot where it is taken off the cars or boats, but where it can be inspected before it is


Sydney Arthur Fisher: shipped, they would strike equally large quantities. Supposing, for instance, thpy inspected at Hamilton, or Grimsby, or St. Catharines, or Winona, they would find as much fruit shipped in a day from these places as they would find in Montreal, that is to say, the inspectors would be exercising just as much economy of time in going to these towns I first mentioned when the apple shipping season is at its height. If they went to Winona, and then five miles further on to Grimsby, then sixteen miles further on to St. Catharines, they would find a very much larger number of barrels of apples or other fruit to inspect than by confining their operations to the larger cities. I think the Act requires some amendment in principle like this, providing some place where the shippers could be expected to have their apples inspected. I think the amendment of my hon. friend is in the right direction. It is much easier for men to look after their fruit at home, and it is reasonable that a fruit grower should expect his apples to be pretty well taken off his hands after they get upon the railroad. After he has shipped a great many barrels of apples, he has a lot of business to attend to, a large number of men under him, and it is natural that he would like to get rid of responsibility for his apples as soon as possible after they are shipped. When they get on the cars for Montreal, if they are going to England, he thinks his responsibility should cease. The minister may say that the fruit can be traced, that the fruit grower has an opportunity of knowing just as much as the railroad how many barrels he ships. For instance, if he ships on a railwa/, he knows by his bill of lading how many barrels they have in custody, and how many he can hold them responsible for, and I do not think it would be unreasonable that he should be able to know as to the quality. The government provides for an inspection which shall be .made somewhere, and I think it is better that it should be made as near as possible to the place where the goods are produced.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The government does not provide that the goods shall be inspected anywhere. There is no provision in the Act that any fruit shall be inspected. It must be shipped under certain conditions and it may be inspected to see if those conditions are complied with, but the government does not assume the responsibility of inspecting fruit.	.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Technically the Act may not provide for its inspection, but practically it is inspected by the government because an inspector is employed and the inspector prosecutes any person whose fruit is represented to be what it is not.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There are thousands of barrels that are never looked at.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The fruit-grower, if this Bill were passed, would be induced to bring about such a state of affairs that there would be a correct, proper and honest packing of fruit. We know that when the reputation of a certain place arises, when some man living at Grimsby, or St. Catharines, or Winona, or Burlington, succeeds in making a reputation for shipping good fruit, somebody else at the same place may get the benefit of that reputation because it is not the man's name that will be remembered so much as the name of the place where the fruit comes from. Where did this fruit come from ? It came from Grimsby, or St. Catharines, or Burlington, or Winona, or Guelph, or some other place, and that fact will probably have more weight with the purchaser than the name of the individual shipper. If the inspectors make an inspection, as we assume they will, being employed for that purpose, in order that the Act shall be properly enforced, I think the Bill of the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Smith) is in the right direction, because it would result in the inspectors making their inspection at the place where the goods are first packed. In regard to the number of barrels in each car that would have to be inspected, I do not think that any difficulty would be found in that. I do not know very much about it and I speak subject to correction, but I think that wheat is often inspected by the carload by government inspectors. They, of course, do not examine all the wheat in the car, but they examine samples taken here and there, and they form a pretty good opinion from such an examination. If a man packed a carload of apples and the inspector went through and took out a barrel here and there, I think we would be pretty safe in taking it for granted that he would be able to make a good inspection in that way. I do not think there would be anything unreasonable in making a regulation to that effect, as it would provide for such an inspection as the hon. member for Wentworth wants, and I think it would be a reasonable inspection without examining each barrel. As to the question of packing, of course, it is more or less a matter of opinion. If the inspector is where the apples are grown and lie differs from the shipper as to the classification it would be an easy matter to settle such a difference. The inspector says to the shipper:	You
must not put that fruit in as No. 1. The shipper asks :	Why ? The inspector gives
the reason. They would talk it over right there and one or other of them would have to give in. If the inspector were firm in his opinion the shipper would know what he must do with the next barrel, or next carload. or next season's crop of apples. It seems to me that it would he much easier to carry out the Act to secure the proper packing of apples if the inspector and shipper were brought in contact where the apples were being shipped. The hon. minister seems to think that a man's reputation would compel him to ship properly. That is all very well so far as it goes. But in many cases a man's reputation does not come quickly enough. The reputation of a fruit-grower, sometimes takes the best part of his business life to make, and it is desirable that he should be able to get the best price for his apples before he has made his reputation. It sometimes^ takes a man ten or fifteen years to make a reputation, because it sometimes takes him that time to learn how to produce the best fruit, and in another ten or fifteen years he may not have more than five or six good crops. If you wait until he has had enough good crops after he has learned how to grow the fruit properly to make a reputation, I am afraid the man will be ready to depart this life before that result has been achieved. I think he should get the benefit of the price that his apples are worth, if in the first year he is able to grow apples that are A No. 1. There is another matter that is not covered by the Bill which I do not think the hon. minister will object to me mentioning, although I am not prepared at present to move an amendment on that point. The present section 4 of the Act, as amended, provides that the shipper is entitled to mark a package containing fruit of the first quality No. 1, xxx, No. 2, xx, No. 3, x. Several fruit-growers in my part of the country have told me that they are satisfied that a fraud has been perpetrated upon them by some people they have shipped to. Unfortunately, they are not in a position to prove it because it is a fraud which is so easily committed. It is committed in this way :	A fruit-grower ships
a barrel of fruit marked xx, and the man to whom he ships takes a stencil and puts another x beside the original mark. The first purchaser sells these goods as being of first quality, or xxx. We, in the Niagara district, are satisfied that this has been done more than once. The person who is blamed in the cases in which this fraud has been detected, is the person who ships the fruit and who marked it xx. The shipper says : I only branded the fruit as xx, but the evidence is altogether against him. I think this practice would he made impossible if the shipper were only to mark upon the package the qualify in plain figures as No. 1, No. 2, or No. 3, and nothing else. These figures could not be altered, No. 3 could not be changed to No. 2, No. 2 could not be changed to No. 1, and there would be nothing which could be put beside the figure which would change the classification of the fruit. It would then not be so easy for the first purchaser to accomplish this fraud so as to get the benefit of selling fruit of a certain quality at the price of a better quality which he has been able to do without taking any risk himself. If he is caught he simply says : There is the barrel.

there are the marks upon it, go to the man who shipped the fruit. I think this suggestion is worth consideration.


Mr. WADE.: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me in regard to the last objection, that that might be remedied very easily by changing the kind of 'Stencil that the shipper uses. If he only leaves sufficient space to enable the proper number of X's to be put in, then, another could not be put there. In regard to the Bill before the House, I wish to say a word or two against it, because I do not see how it could be worked out if we were to have government inspectors of all fruit. I do not see how you could, under the present condition of affairs, authorize any one shipper to send word to an inspector that he must come at a certain time and go through a carload or a dozen carloads of fruit. It might occupy the time of one inspector for days or weeks while his services would be required in some other part. If the government is willing to take the responsibility and expense of sending a sufficient number of inspectors to inspect every barrel of fruit which is packed, then and not till then can we consider a provision of this sort. If the government is prepared to go to the expense of doing that, then this provision.would be workable, but otherwise it would not, and although I represent a fruit country, I rather hesitate to ask the government to go to that expense, because I think it would be unreasonable. Moreover the present Act is giving fair satisfaction throughout the country, and it has certainly accomplished a large measure of good. I believe that since the passage of the Act the fruit is better packed, and that a better reputation is being secured for our fruit in the foreign market.


Mr. HOLMES.: I heartily endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade), because I believe it would be practically impossible to make this Bill workable, unless the government, intended to employ a very much greater number of inspectors than they have at present. This amendment to the Act would mean that the inspectors shall be at the call of the shipper whenever there is fruit that they think needs inspection, and that would entail the employment of an army of inspectors. There are other portions of the Dominion besides the counties of Lincoln and Wentworth from which apples are shipped, and it would certainly be very expensive to have inspectors at all these points. There is another feature in connection with it to which the hon. member for Lincolu (Mr. Lancaster) referred, and I think he was wrong on that point. He said that the reputation of the apple is known by the locality whence it comes, but 1 am of opinion that the brand of the fruit accounts for the reputation more than the locality. All the shippers have their own brands and they go on their merits in that way. It occurred Mr. LANCASTER.
to me that perhaps in the shipping season it might be advisable if the government could employ a few additional inspectors or sub-inspectors in certain localities, but if we make this Bill law it will be found to be impracticable to work it.


Robert Laird Borden: I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture what is the practical operation of the Act at present. Is there an inspection of some portion of all the apples exported or used throughout the country. I suppose it means that only a few barrels, for instance, of a large ship meat would be inspected. If some of them are found not up to the mark what is the course pursued ? Do the inspectors in that case inspect every barrel. The Act does not seem to be of very much value unless that course is pursued, and yet if you do pursue that course you would require to do a very large amount of work in order to ensure any value whatever from the marks placed upon the apples by the shipper. If apples are not found to be up to the standard, are proceedings taken by the government against the packer or shipper or tlie person who is responsible.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I must reiterate what I have often said to the House : that this Act does not contemplate the inspection and grading of fruit by government inspectors.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that perfectly. But it does to some extent propose to ensure that the marks placed upon the fruit by the shipper, are marks which can be relied upon by the consumer.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It does that by providing machinery for the working of the law, and penalties for punishment in case the barrels are improperly marked. The government have provided the machinery which any one can put in motion, and they have gone further and appointed certain inspectors so that shippers and packers would understand that in addition to the people to whom they were selling, there were also officials on the watch for infractions of the law. It is believed that the fact of having that machinery and having inspectors who are liable to drop on any shipment at any time, causes the packers to take more care in the packing and as to the marks they put on the fruit. I have figures here which have been submitted to the Committee of Agriculture by the gentleman who has charge of the work, and they show that last season the total number of barrels opened was 78,016 and the total number of boxes opened was 525. These were individual packages of shipments which aggregated 154,000 packages. The practice is that the officer of the department opens, say ten or fifteen packages out of a shipment of 100, and if he finds them good he

goes no further. If he finds them not up to the mark, he either condemns the whole lot as being similar to those he has opened, or, if the shipper wishes or requests it he examines the whole lot and grades Those that are good and those that are bad. That is the practice. I may say that we have four inspectors during the autumn in Montreal; two travelling inspectors in Ontario; three inspectors in the maritime provinces ; one in British Columbia and one in Manitoba. It is quite understood that these men cannot possibly deal with more than a percentage of the packages and the whole intention of the Act is deterrent; not necessarily to catch them but to induce them to act honestly through the danger of being caught. Generally when a first offence is detected the persons are warned, and if the offence is repeated they are prosecuted, and so far we have not failed in any prosecution we have undertaken. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) referred to a case where the first purchaser changed the mark by adding another x. There was no difficulty in proving that offence, and the first packer was exonerated. and the seller who changed the mark was punished. There is no great difficulty in making proof of that kind, but nevertheless the first packer ought to make such a mark that it cannot be easily changed. If a ring were put around the original two xx the third x could not very well have been added, and the stencil is usually made with a ring around. I am sorry that some packers do not use stencils which are difficult to change, and if they are so careless 1 am not sure that they ought to be protected from their carelessness. Stencilling is so cheap and easy that I would not care to change the Act so as to protect those who are so indifferent as merely to mark with a blue pencil on the package. IIow-ever, I may say that we have encouraged the use of the marks Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and I am glad to know that that encouragement is bearing fruit, and that a great many packers throughout the country are using these marks instead of the old ones, and I hope that before long the Canadian fruit trade generally will use a uniform system of marks.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the minister think it necessary to have the x marks as well as those ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That was allowed in deference to a section of the country in which the x marks were largely used ; but I am glad to say that the Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are being largely used instead of the x marks. With regard to the locality of the fruit and the use of personal marks, I may say that in a great many instances the packer uses his personal mark, though the fruit comes from ten or a dozen different localities. I am sure that my hon. friend from Wentworth (Mr. Smith) buys fruit all over the province of Ontario and puts his name on it. Though the localities from which the fruit comes are not known, Mr. E. D. Smith is known. That is the reputation which I had reference to having been built up by my hon. friend.


Robert Holmes: May I be allowed a word more, with the consent of the House, with reference to the matter alluded to by the minister-the case in which the packer had changed the brand ? There was a case of that kind in my own county, in which the tine imposed was merely nominal; and the general opinion of the fruit growers and packers throughout the country was that the tine was entirely inadequate to the offence.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think the fine for an offence of that kind ought to be ten times greater than for the other offence.


Mr. GILMOUR.: There is one particular in which the Act places the apple dealer at a disadvantage. It is this. There are men who, like the hon. member for Wentworth, buy thousands of barrels of apples on the trees. They then employ men and boys to grade these apples and pack them, and the Act holds the man who buys the apples responsible for these packers. If the apples are not properly packed, he is fined, and his name is sent broadcast through the country ns that of a man who has been fined for fraudulently packing apples. If I were a shipper of apples, I would send them out under the second grade, and would work out my own reputation, as suggested by the hon. member for Lincoln. I think the government, in their care to have apples properly packed and sent forward, so as to ensure a good name for this country, should not have gone any further than to require a barrel of apples to be packed uniformly from the top to the bottom, leaving people to put on their own marks. If the apples were found to be not uniformly packed in the barrel from the top to the bottom, then impose as heavy a fine ns you please.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I want to ask the hon. minister a question. I stated that the Act at present compels a man to put on the grade mark, whereas the Act as originally introduced into the House in 1900 did not do so. I understood the minister to say that I was mistaken. If so, I would like to have my mistake pointed out.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No. I said that the Bill as originally introduced in 1900 did not contain that clause, whereas the Bill as introduced in 1901, when it was made law, did contain it, in section c of clause 4. The Bill introduced in 1900 was only a tentative Bill, and was not even discussed.
Motion negatived, on division.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: In the absence of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson), I beg leave to move that Bill (No. 130) to amend the Fruit Marks Act, 1901, be now read the second time. The purport of this Bill is simply to abolish the designations and grades of markings in the Act. The objections urged by the fruit growers to the Act in that respect are so well set forth in a resolution passed by the Fruit Growers' Association at Burlington, that I cannot do better than read it. The purport of it is as follows
Noticing that Bills to amend the Fruit Marks Act are being introduced in the House ot Commons. many fruit growers consider it an opportune time to draw the attention of legislators and the public to some grievance which exist under the Act, and possibly to suggest remedies for some of these evils.
No one questions the fact that great improvement in the packing of fruit has resulted from the passing of the Act of 1901. As far as known all fruit growers are in the fullest sympathy with what was ostensibly the purpose of its designers. The purpose of the Act as clearly stated and understood at a conference between the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture and representative fruit growers and dealers was- so to frame it as to consider the interests of the growers in preference to those of the dealers when these interests conflicted :-
To prevent fraud in packing by having the contents of ail closed packages to correspond fairly with the face or shown surface of such package.
To give the packer's name and address in full as a guarantee of good faith.
And to stipulate that certain marks to be defined were not to he used unless the contents of the package graded up to a certain standard, all other marking to be at the discretion of the shipper.
These provisions would have adequately protected the public from fraud, would not have been onerous on the grower or shipper and would have been entirely acceptable to the great majority of fruit growers and to fair minded dealers.
The beneficial results have been derived principally from section 7 of the Act, which provides that the face of any package shall be a fair representation of the contents, and from clause * A' of section i which provides for the name and address of the packer being ' placed on all packages. These are the vital points in the Act and constitute within themselves a sufficient safeguard for the public, and with the penalties imposed for infractions a sufficient deterrent to such packers as may be fraudulently inclined. These demands are not too much to expect of the ordinary fruit grower, who can readily understand the difference between honest and fraudulent packing and who cannot but understand the importance of fruit going forward under his name having a uniformity of excellence.
These improvements in the trade and satisfactory conditions, as before stated, have been effected entirely under certain sections of the Act as originally passed in 1901, but in the dying hours of the session of 1902 amendments to the Act were railroaded through the House without explanation or due consideration, and being quite uncalled for either by the public or the fruit grower. The objectionable feature of these amendments are principally embodied in Hon. Mr. FISHER.
clause ' C ' of section 4, which arbitrarily demands that a farmer shall grade to a specified standard which must necessarily vary materially in different sections, and in the ideas of various individuals, and then brand with a fixed mark to designate the grade or quality, which uo other class of the community is called upon to do and to which no class but the farmer would submit.
It is therefore widely regarded as an unwarrantable interference with the fruit growing industry and with the rights of a citizen, and the farmers of the Dominion should as one man raise a protest against this injustice being perpetrated on a section of their calling and resent the indignity thus thrust upon them.
Penalties are provided for failing to comply with all the conditions required and heavier penalties for attempting to do so when the judgment of the farmer fails to conform to that of the inspector, although it may be the judgment of an experienced and honest packer against that of an inspector whose efficiency is questionable, and the farmer is at'once branded a criminal without the privilege of trial by jury. Thus trade is seriously hampered by terrorizing the grower who, rather than take the risk of marking his packages, and incurring the odium of being fined, is induced to sell his fruit to the speculator much below its value or allow it to remain in the orchard.
This compulsory grading and branding is not only impossible as applied to all packers under varying conditions but it is both absurd and useless. Being the marks of the owner who is an interested party, those marks demanded by the Act would not be considered by any court and would consequently have no commercial value in case of a dispute between buyer and seller.
There .should be no compulsory grade marks, and responsibility for grades should not rest on the farmer but on qualified and competent inspectors, who should be available to do inspection work when required, and issue certi-cates as in other lines of business-these certificates would be final in case of dispute as to quality.
The Act might in the opinion of many shippers define No. 2 or No. 3 fruit, but it should be entirely optional with a shipper whether he has his fruit graded to a government standard or not. Millions of bushels of wheat change hands annually without inspection, and when it is inspected the owner does not Indicate the quality, but the inspector makes his examination and issues his certificate. In such cases the person requiring the services of the Inspector pays the established fees.
I cannot put the case plainer than it is put in this circular. Under the Act a packer is compelled to put certain marks on his barrels. The hon. minister has told ns that in the Act of 1901, there is a similar condition. I cannot see it. Section G describes a brand called A No. 1 Canadian brand apples. and section 7 describes No. 1 Canadian brand, and provides and the Act provides that any one who uses these brands must conform to certain specifications. No one. however, is obliged to use these brands. That is what the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) complains of. and his Bill wipes out the grades altogether. 1 would not go so far. I would like to see these grades in the Act, but only as they were in the Act first introduced. I would like

to liave two grades exactly defined, but to have the.branding of these grades optional. Let the packer not be obliged to put on these marks and thus avoid subjecting himself to a fine if he makes a mistake. The trouble with the present law is that a, packer has to put certain marks on the apples without being in a position to know whether the packing corresponds to these1 marks or not. and he thus may render himself innocently liable to a fine. The hon. minister's objection that the inspection would cost too much is not reasonable. When a car is examined, every barrel is not inspected, but only some of the barrels. If you take one barrel out of a lot of one variety, packed in the one orchard, it is fair to assume that the remainder of the barrels will be the same. The Act is an excellent one in many respects and has done a great deal of good, but it lacks some things to make It perfect. There are three things wanting. first, grade No. 2 should be defined; second, the marking of these grades should not be compulsory; third, the inspector should be appointed at the instance of any one requiring him. Suppose a car of apples is refused on its arrival. An inspector is called in, and h,e may go or not as he likes. If he happens to be on hand, and does go and examine a few of the barrels, what may be the consequence ? The shipper may be asked to lose fifty cents or a dollar a barrel on the whole cargo when the inspector has only examined five or six barrels. That, according to the hon. minister's contention, is not fair, because five or six barrels would not indicate what the cargo is like, and consequently the shipper has no right to lose. Of course I know that the inspection would not hold as evidence in a court of law, but nevertheless any one can understand that when a shipper goes into court and the evidence of the inspector is taken, the verdict is likely to go against him. I do not know but that the inspection would be absolutely just if it were taken on each of the different brands in the car, but if only taken on five or six barrels which happened to be shoved to the front and were picked out as the worst barrels and then the whole cargo condemned, one can see the injustice. But if the apples had been examined before shipment, and it was then found that they were not up to grade, the shipper could either repack them or sell them as grade No. 2, instead of grade No. 1, for which he would get within twenty-five cents of No. 1. But once the apples are shipped and received by the consignee, and condemned on the examination of a few barrels by the inspector, as not being up to the grade mark, the shipper has to take whatever he can get, because it would not pay him to go to law. Instead of being a benefit as it might be, if made before the apples were shipped, the inspection becomes a detriment. Suppose a shipper sends his apples to Winnipeg or Montreal, and on arrival they are condemned, he is in no position to remedy what he might have done very innocently, because in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, the packer gets the best apples he can, but they may not be put up all right. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, as the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. (iilmour) pointed out, the packer gets men to pack the apples. He gets the best men he can, but if they do not put them up right, according to his judgment, still, he is at their mercy to a great extent. The hon. minister knows that very well. When the apples reach Montreal or some distant place, he may be notified that they have not been properly graded and he is then in no position to save himself. If his apples were condemned at home, he could re-pack them and get what they are worth out of them. There are many other things to be said on this subject, and I trust that other members will take up this discussion. I feel that we rest under a grievance as things are at the present time.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: I understand that we are now discussing the Bill standing in the name of the hon. member for I-Ialton (Mr. Henderson). It seems to me that the argument of the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Smith) was, to a certain extent, mixed up with his argument for his own Bill. While I would not presume to reflect in any way upon the clearness of what he has been saying, I must confess that I have been a little at a loss to know whether' he has been speaking in favour of his own Bill or in favour of that of the hon. member for Halton. However, I may follow his example ; and I would like to quote against the Bill now before us what the hon. gentleman read in favour of his own Bill. He read two or three letters in which remarks were made about the necessity of having the inspectors go to the orchards and there inspect the fruit. But he read other sentences from these same letters which stated distinctly that the amendment jiroposed by the hon. member for Halton, if passed, would completely destroy the efficacy of the Act. I agree with those statements. I think that if this amendment were passed, the Act would be emasculated to such an extent as to be of very little use. Now, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Smith) referred back to the Bill of 1901. I have not at the moment that Act under my hand. I understood that when the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Smith's) own Bill was being disposed of, and the hon. member for Halton not being present, we would not take up his Bill, so I sent my papers away. Speaking from memory of the Bill of 1901, it did not specify any particular marks, but it did require the designation of the grade contained in the Act of 1901, which are now part of the law, but it did specify in part that the grade of the fruit should be marked upon the pack-

age. That was and is an essential of the Act. If the packer is allowed to pack his fruit and not mark upon the package the quality of fruit, it would be impossible to hold liim to any penalty under the Bill. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Smith) bows his head. Is that the object-to prevent the packer being pursued and punished for improper packing and false marking ? If it is his object, I take issue with him squarely, and say that the country wants the packer to be pursued and punished for bad packing and false marking, and that that is the very object of the Act. I do not think the hon. gentleman really wants the Act so emasculated that the packer shall escape all responsibility. I do not think the hon. gentleman would take the responsibility before his constituents of saying that he wants to emasculate the Act in that way.


James Gilmour: How is the hon. minister going to reach the packer, when he is really employed by the buyer of the apples ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would inform the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gil-mour) that the man who actually packs the fruit is responsible, and, under the Act, is liable to a penalty as his employer is.


James Gilmour: But you cannot find him. How then can you fine him ?


The MINISTER OE AGRICULTURE.: Exactly. That is why we want to get at the employer. You cannot find the poor man who has been paid $1 a day to pack the apples-he may be a hundred miles away. But if we found him and punished him, that would not be of any use. We look to the employer, who is a responsible man and responsible for the working of his employees. That is essential to the Act, and I think the House and the country want that to remain a part of the law. I do not think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Smith) himself would like to see the employer relieved of the responsibility. If this were done, the Act would not be worth the paper it is printed on. If the hon. member for Wentworth employs men to pack fruit and can throw the responsibility for bad packing on these men, how could he be held responsible or be punished for the bad packing of the fruit ?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The hon. minister is quoting me wrongly-


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am speaking of the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Gilmour).


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: But I am referring to what was said before the hon. member for East Middlesex spoke. I made no reference in what I said to the packer escaping responsibility.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE No; but the hon. member for East Middlesex did. I said that the hon. member for Wentworth would not wish the packer to Hon. Mr. FISHER.
be allowed to evade responsibility. He knows that the employer ought to be responsible, for he is the only person who can be successfully pursued. The workman who is employed at $1 a day cannot be pursued. It is true that if he does bad packing he is liable to a fine, as his employer is. But if we could pursue him only, the Act would not be of any. use. It is the employer who must be looked to and held responsible. The hon. member for Wentworth sells his fruit under his own name. When I buy a barrel of apples marked ' E. D. Smith ' I expect to get something good, for the hon. gentleman's reputation, position and standing are back of all he does. But if I turned to John Jones, employed by Mr. E. IX Smith to pack fruit in his orchard and tried to hold him because a barrel of apples I bought was not equal to the markings, I should stand but a poor chance. The hon. gentleman does not Wish the buyer to be put in that position, I am sure. He does not tvnnt to shirk responsibility, nor does he believe that the employers of labour wish to shirk responsibility. Their reputation is made by being responsible, by giving a guarantee for the fruit they pack and ship under their name. But what I was saying, and what the hon. member (Mr. Smith) misunderstood me about, was in regard to clause C of section 4, which was originally in the Act as passed by this House. In the session of 1902 there was an extension of clause C of section 4, specifying certain markings which had to be put upon the package. That was done to secure uniformity of markings, but the clause is no more stringent in requiring the designation of grade to be put upon the package than was that of 1901.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: If the hon. minister will permit me


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I cannot see how the minister can argue in that way. The original Act did not compel any man to put any particular mark on the package.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. geutleman will excuse me. Here is the Bill of 1901, section 4 :
Every person who by himself or through the agency of another person packs fruit in inclosed packages intended for sale, shall cause the package to. be marked in a plain and indelible manner before it is taken from the premises where it is packed :
(a) With the initials of the Christian names and the full surname and address of the packer ;
(h) Both the name of the variety or varieties ; and
(c) With the designation of the grade of the fruit.
That is the Act of 1901. It contains clause c.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: 
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes. That is not the Bill as proposed, it is the law that passed, and in 1902 an addendum was made to that clause which required that in making the designation of the grade of the fruit, certain marks should he used, namely, x, xx and xxx, or No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3. That is an addendum to the clause ; hut the essential of the clause, that the grade of the fruit has to be put upon the package, was contained in the original law.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I was referring to the Bill that was introduced at the suggestion of the Fruit Growers' Association.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That was introduced in 1900, but after further discussion with the fruit growers, with the dealers, and with the packers, and after full consideration in committee, that Bill was drawn up and introduced in 1901, and the designation of the grade of the fruit was required, and it was passed in that form by this House, after thorough discussion in which the hon. gentleman himself took part.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I think this amendment destroys to a large extent the original intention of the Act. As stated by the Minister of Agriculture, in the Act of 1901, clause c, of section 4, merely says that the barrel or package shall be marked with the designation of the grade of the fruit Then section G forbids any person to sell, offer, expose or have in his possession for sale, any fruit improperly marked. This was found not to be definite enough in operation, hence the Act of 1902, which states in subsection c that the packages should lie marked :	[DOT]
*With a designation of the grade of fruit, which shall include one of the following six marks : for fruit of the first quality, No. 1 or XXX ; for fruit of the second quality, No. 2 or XX ; and for fruit of the third quality, No. 3 or X.
Then it urns necessary to amend section 0 in consequence. Now the amendment before the House proposes t >
sweep away everything that was done in 1902 and leave it to the general expression that there shall be a designation of tlie grade of the fruit, leading to the same uncertainty that existed before. I think that would be very unwise. In my judgment the only amendment that is needed in this Act is the one that has been asked for by the fruit growers and shippers of the maritime provinces, namely, that not only should there be a specification of the variety of No. 1 or xxx, hut there should also be a specification of the varieties Nos. 2 and 3, so that a party should be fined for improper packing of those varieties just the same as in the case of other varieties. I think, therefore, it would be a mistake to do anything which would lead us
back to tlie uncertainty that has existed. No Act of this kind can he framed and put into successful operation from the start. It requires some experience. I think that the amendments passed in 1902 were based entirely upon the experience of those who had been endeavouring to operate tlie Act.
1	am sure that so far as the growers and shippers of the lower provinces are concerned, this Act is popular as it stands, and that the only amendment it requires is one with regard to this specification.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As I understand the present Act, it only applies to fruit marked No. 1, and not to the other grades.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It provides for them, hut it does not describe them. I am in sympathy with the proposal of my hon. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Wade), and the hon. member for Wentworth himself stated a few minutes ago that he was in favour of having No.
2	grade defined. I think the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) will find that there is a special clause describing what must he put into a package marked No. 1, but there is no clause describing what must he put into a package marked No. 2 or No. 3, and it is that definition which the fruit growers of Nova Scotia and the hon. member for Wentworth have proposed. I am in sympathy with the idea, hut I have not yet prepared an amendment to the Act. If I think best, before the end of the session, I may do so.
Motion negatived on division.


RAILWAY ACT, 1903.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 21) to amend and consolidate the law respecting railways.-The Minister of Railways and Canals.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The question before the Chair is clause 1, of section 3, and the amendment of Mr. Barker to include railways in the operation of the Act.
Amendment (Mr. Barker) negatived.
On section 3, subsection 2 :
Any section of this Act may, by any special Act passed by the parliament of Canada, be ex-c:f pted from incorporation therewith, or may thereby be extended, limited or qualified. It shall be sufficient, for the purposes of this subsection, to refer to any section of this Act by its number merely.


John Graham Haggart: Surely we have that power at any time in the future without putting it in this Bill ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS ANI) CANALS. I suppose there is no objection to that phraseology. We are following the present Act in putting it in. We have the power, no doubt, but tliere is no harm in stating that it is intended to be of universal


John Graham Haggart: I could understand that in a special Act which 1ms already become the law in the Dominion, but it refers to future Acts of parliament that may be passed. It means that a person might make an application for a charter and yon reserve the power to the Dominion of Canada to pass an Act which may exempt that special charter from any clause of this Bill.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are providing for application to Acts which are passed. They are covered by this sub-clause and this subclause qualifies the first sub-clause of the section.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: -that is from incorporation under this Act, -or may thereby be extended, limited, or qualified. It shall be sufficient for the purposes of this subsection, to refer to any section of this Act by its number merely.
If you are passing this Bill in the sense you are supposed to ba passing it, I think if there is one thing above another that we should look after it is the certainty that it shall apply to all railways and that we should not be delegating our powers. I have every confidence in this House as it is at present constituted, but we are doing a very serious thing and we are doing more than at first sight may be supposed. We are saying that notwithstanding the fact that we are creating a commission to dispose of the matters that are said to be creating so much trouble in the country-that a commission is necessary, any railway company may receive a charter by special Act exempting it from the provisions of this Bill, and that if the Railway Committee recommend the granting of such a charter it will be passed because in the House the onus is usually laid upon any person who objects to make a strong case in opposition to the report of the Railway Committee. It is dangerous legislation in connection with a Bill whose application is supposed to be universal. It is true that we have been told it is not the Intention of the government that it shall apply to government railways but it is universal except that it does not apply to government railways. If it does not apply to all the railways of the Dominion it is no good. This is legislation to create a Railway Commission to look after those matters which are supposed to be creating so much trouble in the country that a commission is necessary to deal with them, and if it does not apply to all railways there does not seem to me to be of very much use-in passing this law. This subsection is an invita-Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
tion to this parliament, or to the next parliament, or to any parliament, or to Railway Committee in any year to pass a special Act incorporating the railway and exempting it from the provisions of this Bill That is the elfect of it. The hon. minister may say that parliament would not do anything that was not wise. I do not think we should pass legislation that would imply that it might do so I think the Bill would be much better if that subsection were not in. The Bill would still fulfil all its purposes. It would not impair the strength of the Bill itself. This is not in the old Railway Act. I have compared the old Act with this Bill, and there is no such section as this in it. There is a section in the old Act which says :
This Act, subject to any express provisions of the special Act, and to the exception hereinafter mentioned, applies to all persons, companies and railways within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, except government railways.
This subsection does not help to carry out the Bill at all. It cannot strengthen the Bill or make it more easy to work. Unless there is some better reason than that which has been advanced, I think we should strike that subsection out.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does it not seem to the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals that this subsection is useless ? It simply enunciates a principle that does not require to he stated in the Bill. There is no doubt that the party who drafted the Bill thought it necessary to have this subsection 3 preceded by a recital as in subsection 2, but it seems to me that the subsection is useless and as the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. All'. Hag-gart) says may encourage parties seeking special charters to have these 'charters excepted from the operation of some useful section of this Bill.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I must confess that I cannot see this matter in the way in which it has presented itself to the minds of my hon. friends opposite. I cannot see there is the slightest fault in the subsection, but I see every advantage in it. This is certainly no more an invitation to parliament to introduce special exceptions into special Acts which may be passed hereafter than is the existing law which says :
This Act, subject to any express provisions of the special Act, and to the exception herinafter mentioned, applies to all persons, companies and railways within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, except government railways.
That is what the old law says, and I cannot see any harm in It. Parliament will exercise its discretion, as it must have the right to exercise its discretion, as to whether in any case it will make any special enactment varying from the general enactment.


Mr. COCHRANE.: If this parliament can always do it, what is the use of telling them in this Act that they can do it. It is no argument to say that this clause has always been in the law. Why, that is more Tory than I am. You practically say that because it always has been, it always shall be.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I should be sorry to assume that everything in the existing Act requires to be amended. It must be remembered that this Act is not an Act simply for the purpose of creating a railway commission.


Mr. BARKER.: We are discussing here a public Bill containing a broad general principle that the commission shall have jurisdiction over all railways except two, and yet in the sub-clause we provide that an Act creating a particular company hereafter may contain a clause detracting from the general principle we settle on here. There is a great deal to be said for the argument that the principle of a Bill of this important character should not be subject to be altered by some private Act.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This Act provides for a great variety of things such as the construction and alterations of lines, railway crossings, protection required on railways, and hundreds of other different things. When parliament created the Railway Committee of the Privy Council to deal with all these matters it deemed it advisable that they should exercise their power under the Railway Act, subject to the provisions of any special Act that might be passed.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We should have a little better explanation from the minister. I am trying to help to make reasonable legislation out of this, and although I do not pretend to know as much railroad law as the minister does, yet I think that all he says he wants to do by this clause is done by the constitution without any such clause as this at all. It is safe to say that any particular Act of the parliament of Canada can exempt itself from the operation of this Act without this clause being in at all. As to the argument of the minister, I would say that the more things there are for a special Act to interfere with, the more dangerous it is to invite them to interfere by such a clause as this. Even on the minister's own argument this clause should be struck out. I appeal to the Minister of Justice if I am not right, that without this clause at all any special Act of the parliament of Canada would have the effect which this clause says it shall have. I say it is bad legislation to put in words which are mere surplusage, and which would leave doubt in the minds of the judges who would be construing this clause as to what the intention of the parliament of Canada was in passing such a law. According to the intention of the promoter of the Bill there are five lines here which are absolutely unnecessary, and I say that it is bad draftsmanship and mere confusing surplusage to pass such a law. I wish that some one more eloquent that I am could impress upon the Minister of Railways and Canals the necessity for striking out this sub-clause.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I am not a lawyer, but it appears to me that the legislation of this House should be drafted so that a man of common sense can understand it. I cannot help but draw attention to the fact that I have heard in this House from the Minister of Justice and other members of the government the expression :	what
do you mean by this legislation ? Not long since the Minister of Justice put that question in one of the committees. Would it not be better rather than to have such crude legislation passed by the parliament of Canada, that some person should be paid who would be able to bring common sense into the drafting of a Bill so that we would know what the language means ? What is the use of passing legislation in this House with reference to which the Minister of Justice, who is supposed to have the brightest intellect in the House has to ask what it means? Should not a Bill be so drafted that the trained intellect of legal gentlemen can tell what it means when we put it on the statute-book? How can we expect the judges of the land to construe such legislation when even the Minister of Justice does not know what it means ? It appears to me that it .would be better for the Minister of Railways and Canals to bring common sense to bear on this legislation. Can we not have a clause here, founded on common sense so that the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Railways and Canals will know what it means ? I am willing, as the representative of a rural constituency, to pay a man who is skilled in drafting legislation. It may appear to be a frivolous subject to some hon. gentlemen, but I feel serious about it. Perhaps these hon. gentlemen want to make a little money out of the legislation when it comes before the courts ; but I want our legislation to be so plain that a wayfaring man, though a fool, shall not err therein ; and I am willing to pay from the exchequer of Canada a gentleman who is skilled in drafting legislation, so that when it is placed on the statute-book we shall know what it means.


Mr. SPROULE.: It appears to me that the following words might be left out of this section :
Any section of this Act may, by any special Act passed by the parliament of Canada, be excepted from incorporation therewith, or may thereby be extended, limited, or qualified.
These words appear to me. as a layman, to be unnecessary, because they give us no power that we do not possess already. Perhaps I am not right in my interpreta-

tion of them, but that is the way they appear to me.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. LANCASTER moved that subsection two of section three be struck out.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would like to point out to the committee that the three subsections of section three are all parts of a uniform whole, and are quite in keeping with the general character of our legislation. It is certainly a very proper thing to say in terms that the provisions of any special Act which are in conflict with this, shall not be held to be within the purview of this present Bill.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We have to look at this Act in the interest of the people, as to how it may be construed. In my humble opinion it is very dangerous legislation to Put any language into an Act which is not necessary; because, although we are legislators making the law, the judges in construing it do not go by what we may say here, or by consulting 'Hansard,' but they go by well known legal principles of construction. If a case arose under this Act, and an argument were made by counsel on one side and on the other, the court would be almost constrained to say :	We must
give a different effect to the Act from what we would if that subsection were not there. If the minister could state any special reason why he is putting this language into the Bill, if he could show that it made the Bill mean something that it would not mean if this language were not there, I could understand it being there; but if it only means what would be the case even if the language were not there-simply that a special Act can, if it is necessary, in the opinion of parliament, at the time it passes that special Act, override this general Act-if that is all that is meant, then I do not see the use of these words being here at all. If we put this in, the courts may feel bound to give special effect to every word, phrase and sentence in the Act, and will conclude that parliament meant something else than would have been the law if this were not in and therefore different to what we intend.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: Section 3 provides :
This Act shall apply to all persons, companies ana railways, other than government railways within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, and shall be incorporated and construed as one Act, with the special Act, subject as herein provided.
It does not say it shall apply absolutely, but it shall apply ' subject as herein provided.' Therefore you cannot leave out sub-Mr. SPUOL'LE.
sections two and three, unless you strike out ' subject as herein provided.'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Subsection three makes that perfectly clear. You will have a complete section without subsection two being in at all. I am only proposing to strike out subsection two.


David Tisdale: I understand the hon. gentleman to say that he would strike out subsection 2 and make subsection 3 subsection 2 ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes.


David Tisdale: Subsection 2 refers to Acts that may be passed, but subsection 3 refers to Acts heretofore passed. Under the old law subsection 3 was a section by itself, but it went further than the first subsection of this section 3 does, because it says ;
This Act, subject to any express provisions of the special Act and to the exception hereinafter mentioned, applies to all persons, companies and railways, within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, except government railways.
So, if you strike out subsection 2, you would change the law as it heretofore existed. I am not sure of this point, but I am submitting it for the consideration of the committee. The old law provided, in case there might be any doubt, that the special Act was specially authorized to change the General Railway Act. Now, whether that was necessary or not is a question for us to consider. But, we found it necessary in 18S8, when we consolidated the Act, to make special provisions, that the special Act overrode the Railway Act. I do not know whether it is the intention of the minister, but it might affect my judgment to learn, whether it was his intention to divide that section into three subdivisions ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, that was my intention ; and I may say to the committee that this section as a whole has been very carefully considered, and has been gone over and over and talked about a good deal. It does, in a measure and to the extent which I shall state in a moment, vary the old third clause. Now, let me point out that the main portion of the section, the first subsection, could not very well be left standing alone and declaring on the face of it that this Act shall apply to all the railways within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada. You would have to recognize, as a matter of fair notice to everybody trying to interpret the law, that there might be within the four corners of the special Act exceptions which would override similar or correspondinar clauses and sections of this Bill. That is fair drafting, it seems to me, and we cover the point by stating :
This Act shall apply to all persons, companies and railways (other than government railways)

within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, and shall be incorporated and construed as one Act with the special Act subject as herein provided.
And what is that ?
Any section of this may, by any special Act passed by the parliament of Canada be excepted from incorporation therewith, or may thereby be extended, limited, or qualified.
That is, it is not left merely to implication as I read the clause. Parliament, in a special Act would except from the operation of the general law any one clause or clauses that it chose to so describe and so declare. Well, it is not a complete answer to the propriety of putting it in here to say : Well, parliament has the power to put it in any way. Proper and usual drafting would rather impel one to put in just such a clause as that. Then, we come to the third clause, which deals -with the case of special Acts heretofore passed. Now, the old section 3 provides :	.
This Act, subject to the express provision of the special Act

That conveys, as my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) lias very properly said, the idea that parliament contemplated that special Acts would be passed which would vary the provisions of this Act, and deem it advisable to so enact that one will see at once it speaks in general terms of the| special Act. That special Act might be a special Act of the parliament of Canada or it might lie a special Act of one of the provincial legislatures. For we are frequently in the habit of declaring some special work constructed under some local incorporation, a work for the general advantage of Canada. ; That is one of tlfe difficulties we had to face in creating this Act, but we have all sorts of provisions in the local Acts entirely at variance with tlie\ General Act, and the question is whether we have by the general nature of these Acts made these special Acts part of the law of Canada and thereby withdrawn the case from the operation of the General Act.


David Tisdale: I sympathise with the minister's views to a certain extent, and in criticising the Act, my only desire is to get a better Act if possible. But I do not want to change the old clause, unless the hon. gentleman can point out good reason for it. It is important that we should know, when we grant a charter, just what we are granting. It is important from the practical and financial point of view, for, from any experience I believe that the difficulty is not in getting a railway charter but In*getting the money to build railways. In the committee, I am sometimes charged with being too liberal in the granting of charters. But we want railways in this country, and 1 "believe a railway charter is worth nothing unless it contains clearly, and in such a form us to be seen by the capitalists before whom it is put, the rights and privileges it purports to grant. As I say, I am prepared
to support any changes in the law that are shown to be necessary. I think it covers every thing that he mentions; if it does not, I am quite prepared to have it divided into subsections and change it. The old Act says :
This Act, subject to any expressed provisions of the special Acts and to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, applies to all persons, companies and railways within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada except government railways.
I am the more mystified and unsettled by the language of this subsection divided into three subsections than I was before, and I am prepared to support the clause of the Minister of Railways and Canals, as he 1ms drawn it if he will show me any* necessity for the change. I think it is one of tlie first rules of legislation to use terse and comprehensive expressions. As the hon. member for Lincoln has said, there is less chance of the court attempting to put some construction on the elaboration than there was in the old system. I want the minister to understand that so far as I am concerned the bulk of this Act meets with my hearty approval. It shows a great deal of care and attention to the important and difficult subject of a railway commission, but it seems to me some of these general sections may have an application that we do not intend. But I have not heard a satisfactory reason why it is necessary to have this elaboration.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I had not concluded what I was going to say when my hon. friend rose. I am glad he is giving his attention to the Bill, because I know he will regard it fairly, and that his only object is to make it as perfect as possible. The hon. gentleman does not see why we should have three sections, where one was sufficient before. If lie will turn to section fi, he will find that we are putting in a compact form subsection 3 of section 2. Moreover, if the hon. gentleman will look at section 5 of the present law. he will find there that several of its subsections have been dispensed with. Section 5 of the present law says :
The provisions of this Act, from section 32 to section 89 both inclusive, do not apply to every company and railway within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, but apply to

(a)	Every company whose authority to construct or operate any railway is derived from the parliament of Canada, and to every railway constructed or to he constructed under the authority of any Act passed by the parliament of Canada ;
(b)	Every company and railway to which such provisions are made applicable as hereinafter provided :
2. Such provisions shall, in so far as they are applicable to the undertaking, and unless they are expressly varied or excepted therefrom by the special Act, be incorporated with the special Act, form part thereof, and he construed therewith as forming one Act ;

3. Any of such provisions may be excepted from incorporation with the special Act by enacting in such special Act that the sections of this Act propose to be accepted, referring to them by the numbers which they bear respectively, shall not be incorporated with such special Act, which shall thereupon be construed accordingly.
It is quite a complicated series of sections and subsections that are practically rendered unnecessary by our including subsection 2 and subsection 3 under section 3.


David Tisdale: As I said tbe other day, when you change your Act from tbe ordinary consolidation in tbe way I speak of, it is more difficult to get at tbe full meaning of tbe minister. Now bis statement that tills section is broader than in the old Act makes it more difficult for me to understand what be is aiming at.


Tbe MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is a difficult thing to follow, I confess that.


David Tisdale: Do I understand him correctly to say that In making these changes be is only carrying out the substantia! provisions of the old Act, with such improvements as he might consider necessary, but putting them in a different order ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, I think I have got everything in the new Rill which is in tbe old one. We have not sought to make any change except in this one particular : Under the old Act, the special Acts referred to there might not comprise local special Acts, and there have been several instances to our knowledge in which serious complications have arisen. It is not proposed, when you enact that a railway whose company lias been incorporated by a local legislature, is a railway for the general advantage of Canada and thereby becomes subject to the Railway Act of Canada, that that Railway Act should be cut away in its provisions by all the enactments that may he passed in local legislatures. There must he some authority to make it clear where the final power rests.
Amendment (Mr. Lancaster), negatived, and subsection 2 adopted.


Mr. INGRAM.: Not being in the House this afternoon when the question was up in respect to the words 1 other than government railways' in the first subsection of section three, I simply rise for the purpose of entering my protest against this exception because I believe government railways should be under the control of the commission.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: When this Act gets into operation a very short time would tell whether any complications will arise, and it will be a simple matter for parliament to amend it.


John Graham Haggart: In reference to subsection three, has the hon. minister a record of the railways that this clause will apply to ? Has he a schedule or list of those which will he exempted from the present operation of the Act ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.
On section 4,
Where any railway, the construction or operation of which is authorized by a special Act passed by the legislature of any province, is declared, by any special Act of the parliament of Canada, to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, this Act shall apply to such railway, and to the company constructing or operating the same, to the exclusion of the whole of any other general railway Act, and of such other of the provisions of the special Act of the provincial legislature as are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.


David Tisdale: This is entirely new ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


David Tisdale: Will the hon. minister kindly explain the intention of this section ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We remove the difficulty I pointed out a moment ago; that is when a special Act passed hy a local legislature comes into direct conflict with the provisions of the general Railway Act. I think we have safeguarded that point very well so that no special Acts shall have the effect of rendering this Bill practically nugatory.


David Tisdale: In other words, if I understand It aright, because it is very broad, it means that we are assuming that we have the right, and I do not dispute it, to legislate both positively and negatively, that we have the right to include by the mere declaration that it is for the general advantage of Canada the jurisdiction of any provinces that may have chartered a railway. I am not saying but that we have that full power, but if I understand aright that is the intention of the section, is it not ? To prevent any possible question arising we assume that we have that right ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


David Tisdale: Has the hon. minister satisfied himself that there is no question about our authority to do that ? If we have that right I heartily approve of the section. I think we ought to make that perfectly clear, provided that under the British North America Act we have that jurisdiction. Has the hon. minister the approval of the Department of Justice about that provision or did he think it was so clear that it was not necessary to consult the Department of Justice ?


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think the British North America Act simply gave the power arbitrarily to the general parliament by a declaration to undertake control of all these works. That has been the accepted idea and no question of doubt has been expressed in regard to it. That being the case, if parliament does choose to so declare, then, it is important that we should not be confronted with two conflicting jurisdictions, that we should not have provisions of special Acts conflicting.


John Graham Haggart: Do I understand the hon. minister to say that where a railway company receives its corporate powers from the provincial legislature and we assume jurisdiction over it, or declare it to be a work for the general advantage of Canada and take it under our jurisdiction with the corporate powers it received from the provincial legislature, this Bill changes all the corporate powers it received from the provincial legislature and only gives it such powers as we give to any railway under the general Railway Act ?


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


Robert Laird Borden: I think perhaps the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals did not fully understand the question of the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Hag-gart). It does not change all the corporate powers of a company incorporated under a provincial Act.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not when they are consistent.


Robert Laird Borden: Except in so far as they are inconsistent with this Bill. I do not think my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) quite understood that. We may declare that we take it over for the general advantage of Canada under the British North America Act. It is beyond question that this parliament has the right to legislate. This parliament is now legislating in advance by saying that when that is done then the corporate powers shall only continue in so far as they are consistent with the provisions of this Bill. There is one thing I should like to direct- the attention of the hon. minister to in regard to the wording of this section. There may be some further discussion in regard to the principle. In the third line from the end you say ' the whole of any other general Railway Act.' I presume the reference is to some provincial Act, is it not ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Would it not be better to so express it, because, otherwise, it would probably in the ordinary course have reference to the Act of this parliament. Is not the word 'other' at the
end of the line superfluous ? Does it not interfere with what is intended as the meaning ? Would it not be better to exclude any provincial general Railway Act and such provisions of the special Act of the provincial legislature as are inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not see what the advantage would be in changing the word ' other,' but I would point out that there could be no other general Railway Act of this parliament and that it must necessarily have reference to this Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course the word ' Act ' would in the ordinary course except by express mention or direct implication mean the Act of this parliament.


John Graham Haggart: I differ from the leader of the opposition to some extent. We provide under this Act for the incorporation and organization of that company and under this clause we give it a new incorporation and new powers.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You have to have some general phraseology in order that the power may be clearly conferred. It becomes perfectly clear that if the provisions of the provincial legislation are not inconsistent with this Act they will be worked under, but if they are inconsistent, the inconsistent part must give way when the provisions of this Bill having reference to the same subject go into effect.


John Graham Haggart: What would be left of the provincial enactment to be inconsistent with the provisions of this Act ?


Robert Laird Borden: I think I could answer that. If the company had already been incorporated under a special Act, then the incorporation would not be destroyed although the company might not have been organized under the provisions of this Act. In so far as the provisions of the special Act are inconsistent with this Act they would cease to be operative from the time the work was declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. It is nothing new. An exact case occurred with regard to the Western Counties Railway in the province of Nova Scotia. I had occasion to investigate the status of this railway and I found that the board of directors had continued to be constituted under the special Act after the railway had been declared to be for the general advantage of Canada, and I had to advise that tile constitution of the board of directors under that Act was not valid in so far as it departed from the provisions of the general Railway Act. What is intented by the Minister of Railways and Canals would be worked out just in the same wav. From the time the work is declared to be for the general advantage of Canada then you must



work out the corporate powers of your company in accordance with this Act, but it would not destroy anything that had been done before. Everything that had been done up to that time would be exactly as valid as if this Act had come into operation, but from the time this Act comes into operation you must observe the provisions of this Act which in so far as it provides for matters of that kind constitute the charter of the company in place of the provisions of the special Act under which it was originally incorporated.
On section 5,


David Tisdale: This is a very broad provision and I do not know that it is not well but that we should have such a provision in a Bill of this kind.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is the same as at present, except that the words 'through traffic' are added.


David Tisdale: They are very important words.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is why they were inserted.


David Tisdale: I do not question the advisability of that, but has the minister considered whether we have authority to legislate as to highways which are largely under the control of the provinces.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is no doubt that parliament must have the right to authorize the crossing of highways by railways, and when you have laid down a railway that is under the control of this parliament you must have some authority to cross the highway by that railway.


John Graham Haggart: Why did you put
in the words ' through-traffic ' ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: For greater certainty.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There must be some important reason for including the words ' highway crossings ' in this section. Under the old Act we always had by virture of other sections such power as was necessary. This section is to take the place of section 4 of the old Act, and it is in effect the same except that in this section you have added the words ' highway crossings and through-traffic.' The prima facie control of highway crossings devolves to the municipalities through the provincial legislatures, and the other sections of this Act sufficiently provide for crossing the highways. I do not say that the section is wrong, but I think we ought to know that it is. right because if we pass it without due consideration it might involve some jurisdiction over highway crossings that possibly would be ultra vires of this parliament. I would like to know from the min-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
ister whether the words ' highway crossings ' are necessary in this section, and if the matter has been carefully considered from that point of view. _


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The inclusion of these words was very carefully considered by myself and by those who have acted with me in the preparation of the Bill:	The fact that
we must necessarily, if we are to euact a thorough la w, have control of the crossings of railways and the crossing of highways by railways, makes it important that we should leave it absolutely free from any doubt that we have asserted and maintained the right to exercise that power. It is a protection to the public; it is a sort of police power in one sense; and it is as necessary as almost any other power that we could give to the commission, in the interest of public safety. Nobody, I think, would be justified in claiming that this was the assumption of a power which could not be usefully and properly employed in the public interest; and the fact that we have the power to make regulations for the operation of all railways within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, and everything pertaining to that, would put it also within our power to confer on the commission the power to regulate the crossings of railways and highways by the one or the other.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I may point out to the minister that he is saying, in the last words of the section, that the Act shall apply to highway crossings, whether otherwise within the legislative authority of parliament or not. If they are not within the authority of parliament, this Act cannot bring them in.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend is in error in that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Suppose they are not otherwise within the legislative authority of parliament, does not that mean that this parliament has no control over them ? This parliament cannot give itself control over them by simply saying so.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We would not have authority ns a parliament to interfere ordinarily with the public highways, but the moment we undertake to say that a railway shall be laid across a highway, then we have the power, incident to the exercise of our authority in regard to the railway; and every local or provincial power which conflicts with our power in that respect must be subordinate to it. For that reason, I think this language is quite proper in that connection.


Samuel Barker: I do not think there is any doubt whatever that these words should be in the Act. In that respect I do not agree with my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster). They are placed here for

a particular purpose. It is well known tlint tlie parliament of Canada, in exercising its jurisdiction in respect to railways, undertakes to restrict people in the use of highway crossings. They are not allowed to permit their cattle at large on the highway within a certain distance of a railway. The parliament of Canada has no right to interfere with the people locally in the exercise of their rights over the King's highway except as an incident of railway legislation. Therefore when this provision is inserted in this Bill, it is inserted for the purpose of the railway, and power is given to this parliament for such a purpose whether otherwise parliament would have jurisdiction or not.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) is right, I understand that this Bill is extending the powers of parliament further than does the old law, which does not contain these words; and if the Bill is meant to give this commission authority over the highways, I am all the more against the section.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I might ask the hon. gentleman this question. Suppose parliament lias authorized the construction of a railway, through an unsettled section of the country. Population comes in, and the people require roads. Does the hou. gentleman say that the municipal authority should be empowered to declare whether any protection was necessary or not where the roads crossed the railway ? Should the municipal authority be allowed to lay down a crossing over the railway without being subject to the restriction of any other power ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think so, if they made it safe.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Who is to determine when they have made it safe-the council which doe's it or the general government through its proper officers, who are responsible for the protection of life and property wherever these railways run V The very moment the hon. gentleman says, if they made it safe, he is weakening his position; because he does not leave the municipal body which puts the crossing over the railway to judge for itself whether it is safe or not. That would never work out in the world.


David Tisdale: I think it is clear that there must be one jurisdiction. My hon. friend from Lincoln may be right in saying that we have not that jurisdiction.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I say you cannot get it by saying so, if it belongs to the municipalities through the provincial legislature under the British North American Act.


David Tisdale: We may not have it, even though we have power to enact it. and that is tlie reason I raised the point 1 did. But it is clear in my mind that only * 121J
one parliament has it, and in my opinion we have the right In connection with the railways to take it. If we do not take it, it belongs to the local legislature. It would be a sad state of affairs if we had two jurisdictions, because the public would be always in doubt as to who had the right to assert it.


Andrew B. Ingram: The word ' highway ' is interpreted by the interpretation clauses, but there is no interpretation of highway crossing. Such a crossing might be overhead or underliead or on the level.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: A highway crossing would be something crossing the highway, whether overhead or on the level or underneath.


John Graham Haggart: What part of through-traffic is there that is not in the legislative authority of this parliament ? Is it traffic that originates in a foreign country ? I do not understand why you take it under this clause.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is merely a general statement.
On section 6,
Subject to the provisions of section seven of this Act every railway, the construction or operation of .which is authorized by special Act passed by the legislature of any province, now or hereafter connecting with or crossing a railway *which, at the same time of such connection or crossing, is subject to the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, is hereby declared to be the work for the general advantage of Canada.


John Graham Haggart: As I understand it the object of this is to take all the provincial railways affected by this clause within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. These are very general terms.


David Tisdale: This is the old law.


John Graham Haggart: I think the old law was that these railways should come under the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada for the purpose of regulating crossings and connections.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is practically the same thing. It is to bring the conditions on which crossings shall take place clearly within the jurisdiction of the railway commission.


Robert Laird Borden: This is a very far-reaching clause. I think that originally there was some legislation of this kind in regard to the Intercolonial Railway. I did not know that it had ever gone as far as this section contemplates with regard to other railways. The obvious affect of this will be to bring every railway of Canada under the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. That was the intention before.


Robert Laird Borden: That must be the way it works out, because railways must connect with each other. So, no railway will be left within provincial jurisdiction.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have the authority, and we must either exercise it or refrain from exercising it. And I think it is clear that we should have power to direct the terms of crossings.


Robert Laird Borden: AVhat I have said is subject to the doubt as to whether or not that provisions of the British North America Act must be carried out byi direct statement, naming the railways to be brought under our jurisdiction. I believe that question has been raised by some very eminent lawyers.


David Tisdale: This has been in force for fifteen years, and I believe no case has ever been carried before the court generally. This is the old clause, is it not ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This goes a good deal further than the old clause. The point referred to was raised in the Manitoba crossing case.


John Graham Haggart: Was the point decided in the Manitoba crossing case ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not formally decided. It was argued by Mr. Mowat and Mr. Dalton McCarthy, on one side, and Mr. Blake and Mr. Christopher Robinson, on the other. But the Supreme Court-I was going to say dodged the question. But at any rate, they got around it.


Robert Laird Borden: They did not find it necessary to decide it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: They did not even make allusion to the argument, though the matter was argued very fully. They were content to answer the questions submitted ; but the answers at least implied doubt as to our jurisdiction.


John Graham Haggart: Even if power is given us under the British North America Act surely it ought to be exercised by specific reference to the works we are taking within our jurisdiction, either by naming the road or by stating the points between which we assume jurisdiction over the road.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not see any special difference between the way it is done here, and the way it is done under section 306 of the Act now in force. It proceeds to name every known railway at that time, showing very clearly that parliament did not intend that there should be an exception to the rule, and after naming all the railways it declares these to be works for the general advantage of Canada-
-and each and every branch line or railway now or hereafter connecting with or crossing the said lines of railway or any of them, is a work for the general advantage of Canada.


Andrew George Blair: That does not mean branch lines of these railways alone. So, it seems to be about the same thing as we have here.


Robert Laird Borden: There might be some very fine question as to the effect of that. For instance, suppose a provincial legislature incorporates a railway, and it is built until within the last ten yards of the last half mile of connecting with the railway which connection would clearly make it a work within the jurisdiction of this parliament. At what time does it come within our jurisdiction ? What is the meaning of the words 1 connecting with or crossing ? Does it only become a railway ' connecting with or crossing' when completed?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: By the Act of crossing or connecting with one of these other lines, it becomes subject to the jurisdiction of this parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: But might it not be argued that it comes within our jurisdiction from the very beginning of the undertaking which would necessarily bring it to the connection that makes it subject to this parliament ? It seems to me that some question might arise as to that, because after all, that which gives a provincial railway the character contemplated by the Railway Act is that to complete it, it must be brought in connection with a railway under the legislative authority of this parliament.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think that this parliament does not regard such a work as one for the general advantage of Canada, until it connects with or crosses a railway that is of that character. This parliament is seized of the importance of acquiring the control of the railways in respect of crossings or connections so as to prevent crossings or connections which by the absence of proper appliances and regulations might jeopardize life.


David Tisdale: The point raised by the leader of the opposition is well worthy of consideration. In the old law there were two sections in place of section 0, sections 306 and 307. Section 306 mentions the Intercolonial and numerous other railways, which, it says,
Are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada, and each and every branch line of railway now or hereafter connecting with or crossing the said lines of railway, or any of them, is a work for the general advantage of Canada.
That to a certain extent recognizes the principle that the Minister of Railways has evolved in this new section, though he has gone a step further, because he has drawn on the future to the extent of saying that any railway hereafter

The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. That is in the old Act.

Hon. Mr. TISDALE-connecting with any railway constructed under the authority of the parliament of Canada. Technically, I can point out one thing that may happen, and that will be dangerous. Supposing we incorporate a railway that we do not declare to be for the general advantage of Canada, yet under this clause it would be covered.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We cannot do that if we are incorporating it in a province.


David Tisdale: We can incorporate a railway without declaring it to be for the general advantage of Canada.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Within the limits of a province. Can we incorporate a company to construct a railway which should be wholly within the limits of any one province without declaring that work in terms to be for the general advantage of Canada ?


David Tisdale: But supposing it is in two provinces ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Then it becomes so of necessity.


David Tisdale: The point is technical, I agree, but it deserves consideration. If we go further than we ought, it might be held ultra vires. In the old Act we went on to say :
Every such railway and branch line shall hereafter be subject to the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada.
But we are leaving that out here.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, we do not repeal this.


David Tisdale: But it says :
The provisions of any Act of the legislature of any province of Canada-
We are leaving that out.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, we do not propose to leave out either of these two sections, we propose to except them from the general provisions of the repeal clause, to leave in force these two sections 30G and 307.


Samuel Barker: I would suggest to the minister that it would be much safer in this clause to adopt the course pursued on a former occasion and name all the provincial railways it is proposed to bring under this section. It is a serious question to these provincial companies to be left in doubt under what jurisdiction they may be. That may cause serious trouble, especially to roads now under construction. It will be very little trouble to name all the railways that will be affected by this clause. If parliament can enact the clause as it is drawn. I see no reason why It may not do away with entirely with the whole provincial jurisdiction. If the minister can do what he proposes to do here, he can deprive the provinces of all power of railway legislation. In order to protect the companies that he is dealing with, it would be far better to name them specifically and thus avoid doubt.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I must confess that what the hon. gentleman suggests impresses my mind favourably. It might be desirable to think it over, and I will let the section stand.


Robert Laird Borden: It can be easily done by adding as subsection 3 something like this : The railways referred to in this Act shall, without restricting the generality of the foregoing provisions, include those set forth in the schedule to this Act.
7. Street railways and tramways, while hereby expressly declared to be subject to such of the provisions of this Act as are referred to in section 5, shall not by reason only of the fact of crossing or connecting with any such railway as mentioned in section 6, be taken or considered to be works for the general advantage of Canada, nor to be subject to any other of the provisions of the Act.
2. This section shall apply to all electric railways (as distinguished from electric street railways) passing through or over the Queen Victoria Niagara Palls Park, or through or over the property of the province of Ontario lying upon or along the Niagara river and known as the Chain reserve.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This withdraws from the operation of the general clause which we have allowed to stand, all electric railways, so that the mere fact of crossing a railway which is within the legislative jurisdiction of parliament, does not thereby make it subject to such jurisdiction. It is identical with the existing law.
Hon- Mr. HAGGART. Generally you take jurisdiction over the crossings and connections.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: ' Yes, we do that, and we say that the mere fact of crossing does not make it a work for the general advantage of Canada.


Andrew B. Ingram: Supposing a tramway is chartered from the province of Quebec to the province of Ontario, how does this Act affect such tramway ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not see that it would affect it. Any electric railway that parliament has created, of course continues subject to parliament, and therefore would not fall within clause 7. because clause 7 only applies to these electric railways which have been created by a provincial legislature and which, by reason of their crossing a Dominion railway, are not made -thereby works for the general advantage of Canada.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Do these street railways and tramways Include electric railways running out into the country and gathering freight for large railways ?

3S52


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, it does not. It is for the committee to consider whether it will be desirable to do that. Subsection 2 of section 7 says :
This section shall apply to all the electric railways (as distinguished from electric street railways) passing through or over the Queen Victoria Niagara Falls Park, or through or over the property of the province of Ontario lying upon or along the Niagara river, and known as the Chain reserve.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That only applies to Niagara Falls.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I know. You might put in there, if it is desirable to do so that railways which are carrying freight, so far as their freight business is concerned shall be subject to control of the committee.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I should think it would be most desirable indeed. We have an electric railway in our district that does more business than a great many steam roads in gathering freight and transferring it to other steam roads. This Bill would be of very little use to the people of that section if these electric railways were not included because a large quantity of freight originates with this road. Hundreds and hundreds of cars are collected every season. The road is some twenty-five miles long and runs through the whole fruit district.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does it connect with the Dominion road or is it merely a local railway 7


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: It connects with the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo and Michigan Central.


Andrew B. Ingram: Tramways are only in their infancy, but within the next few years there will be a great many constructed and in order to control freight rates the commission ought to have control of the rates on tramways. Some provision ought to be included in this Bill giving the commission this right.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This is incidental to the discussion we had on the express business the other day. I pointed out to the hon. minister an example of goods shipped over the road that the hon. member for Wentworth speaks of in his county, and the hon. minister told us that if these goods were handed over to the Canadian Pacific Railway at Hamilton they would be under the control of the commission and therefore it was not necessary to make any further provision in regard to express business. Now, my hon. friend (Mr. Smith) desires, and I agree with him, that this commission shall he empowered to deal with the freight business of an electric railway of that kind. This is entirely a provincial railway. That Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).
road only runs from Beamsville to Hamilton and I do not know that this commission could be given power over it. I do not say that it cannot, but I think it is right that we should draw the hon. minister's attention to it. The hon. minister will remember that the other day we were discussing the case in the committee of express goods shipped from the county which 1 represent over this electric road, which is purely a provincial railway, and in no sense within the contemplation of section 3 of this Bill (which is the section that says what this Bill is to apply to) and transferred to the Canadian Pacific Railway, or the Michigan Central, at Hamilton and then coming down to Ottawa, or Montreal, or going some where else. The hon. minister explained that by virtue of the words ' through-traffic ' in section 5 the commission would have jurisdiction over express goods of that kind as being through-traffic, but, now, we are getting just half the case I put. The hon. member for Wentworth desires and I agree with him that freight shipped over that road shall be under the control of this commission. What bothers me is whether this parliament or this commission can control such freight under the wording of section 3 as drawn and as passed by this committee, because that railway is in no sense brought under the jurisdiction of the commission. That is a section regarding the application of this Bill and it was stated the other night, and I think must be admitted by all parties that the Bill does not apply to a provincial railway which does not cross or connect with any other railway which is under the jurisdiction of this parliament. The Hamilton, Grimsby and Beamsville Electric Railway begins at Beamsville and runs to Hamilton, It is entirely a provincial railway. I quite agree with the hon. member for Wentworth that the fruit growers ship a great deal more fruit over that road than they do over the Grand Trunk Railway which is the only other road they can possibly use. I quite agree with him that this road ought to be under the control of the commission. I think it is a serious question and one which has perhaps not been thought of whether you can exercise control over that road at all by this Bill or by this commission, it being purely a provincial railway.


Andrew B. Ingram: There is another point in connection with this and it is the collection of freight on short lines and exchanges by tramways. We know that the tramways in several districts of the country are used for the purpose of changing cars between short lines and trunk lines. They are used as feeders for the trunk lines. They take cars from the trunk lines, the cars are left on the small lines, and when they are loaded they are handed over to the trunk lines again. If the tramways do not come under this Bill great abuses might arise as between the trunk lines and the short lines.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I was not aware that the carrying of freight on electric railways had developed to any considerable extent in Ontario, or to the extent which lion, gentlemen have stated. They have not established any business of that kind in the maritime provinces or in the city of Montreal so far as I am aware. No doubt the future will find very great development in the construction and operation of this class of railways. They will be found to be inexpensively run and it will be possible to do a great deal of business over them ; so that, the question would require to be considered.


Andrew B. Ingram: There are fifty miles under contract now in my district.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Contemplating freight business?


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. member for West Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) has not quite fully stated my view upon the question as I gave it the other day and it would not be a correct statement of my view upon the present point. I admit that as far as my own opinion goes this parliament would not have control over electric railways constituted by the provincial legislatures, even though they were doing a freight business purely and simply, but I am quite clear that while direct control cannot be exercised over them, such as we exercise over other railways, an indirect control is capable of being exercised when the business is done in the ordinary way. If a man who has a carload of merchandise to ship at Beamsville by the electric line and the Canadian Pacific Railway to some point on the Canadian Pacific Railway beyond, consigns those goods in that way, the Canadian Pacific Railway could not name a rate which would not be subject to the control of the railway commission. Therefore, it will be dealt with as through-traffic would be within the jurisdiction of the commission. But, on the other hand, if freight were cax-ried on an electric railway as far as the electric railway would take it, if it were consigned to some one at the end of the railway, and he made a consignment on a further bill of lading in the absence of any freight rate, if there was a special rate simply for carriage on the electric road, and a distinct and separate rate for carriage on a railway, then I have my doubts as to whether the commission would reach that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The case I put tonight is the case of stopping at the terminus of the electric road.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know how we could overcome that. I think it will be felt in practice that as a general rule where goods are sent straight through, the railway company would be very much more disposed to give a favourable rate than they would if it were done the other way, and the through route would become the much more advantageous method of sending the goods than would the other, and being advantageous it would be adopted, and being adopted, it would come within this law.


Andrew B. Ingram: So far as these sections are concerned, if they are going to exclude tramways from their operation the Bill is not worth the paper it is printed on in reference to sections of the country that rely on tramways to remove their freight. If you gave the commission power to control the rates over those tramways it would be in the public interest.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am quite of opinion that it would be desirable if possible to include control over tramways which do a freight carrying business. I will think that over and perhaps I may come to a conclusion in the sense suggested. I was not aware that there was any considerable amount of merchandise carried by these tramways.


Andrew B. Ingram: People are now very anxious to construct these railways solely with the object of having their freights removed to the trunk lines. If these tramways were to charge high rates there would be no relief to the sections of the country in which they are operated.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We will let the first subsection stand, and I will consider it.
Subsection one of clause seven allowed to stand.
On section S.
The Railway Committee of the Privy Council is hereby abolished and, in lieu thereof, there shall be a commission, to be known as the ' Board of Railwav Commissioners for Canada,' consisting of	members who shall be appointed by the Governor in Council, at any time after the passing of this Act, and from time to time as vacancies occur. Such commission shall be a court of record, and have an official seal, which shall be judicially noticed. Each commissioner shall hold office during good behaviour for a period of ten years from the date of his appointment, but may be removed at any time by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons; and shall cease to hold office upon reaching the age of seventy-five years. Each commissioner on the expiration of his term of office shall be eligible for reappointment. One of such commissioners shall be appointed, by the Governor in Council, chief commissioner of the board, and shall he entitled to hold the office of chief commissioner so long as he continues a member of the board ; and another of the commissioners shall be appointed by the Governor in Council, deputy chief commissioner of the board.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS move that section 8 be a mended

by striking out after ' governor ' in tlie *eleventh line, the words ' General on address of the Senate and House of Commons,' and inserting in lieu thereof the words ' In council for cause.'


Robert Laird Borden: What is the reason for the change ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The opinion of Council, in going over the Bill, was that it would be desirable to place the members of the commission very much in the same position as lieutenant governors under the British North America Act. It is a very cumbrous proceeding to invite the action of the Senate and House of Commons by an address. Cases might arise in which it would be very important and desirable that prompt action should be taken without waiting for a session of parliament.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is the object of extending the term of appointment to ten years ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The period of the tenure of office varies a good deal in various countries. The hope is that by affording a reasonably long tenure of office to the appointees, we shall secure a good class of men. I think it would be practically impossible to expect that any gentleman qualified to fill this position, and being engaged in active business life, would throw that business up to take up a position of this kind for a short term, and be subject to all the loss which would be incident to such a state of affairs. I think any shorter period than ten years would be a mistake.


Andrew B. Ingram: The bon. gentleman provides that each commissioner shall be eligible for reappointment. If his conduct were satisfactory, he would be appointed again. If a man, after his appointment, turned out to be undesirable, then I suppose the government would exercise their power to remove him by action of the Governor in Council. If the term were shorter, he would be put on his good behaviour, because by doing his duty for the shorter term he would secure his reappointment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I move that the blank in the fourth line be filled up by the word ' three.'


Andrew B. Ingram: Are we not entitled to know the class of men to be appointed ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can only say that the intention of the government is to select the best class of men we can get for the position.


Andrew B. Ingram: Railway men, lawyers, or what ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have intimated my own view Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
that it would be desirable to have a lawyer, and a lawyer of some railway experience or knowledge. Then, it would be necessary to have a man of some knowledge and experience in the matter of operating railways, if we could get such a one ; but that is a question which is not yet solved. We have not yet begun to consider the personnel of the commission, but we shall have to give it attention as early as possible. The difficulty of getting men now filling responsible positions in the railway service of the country who would be likely to accept a position of this kind, would lie very great; but we shall do the best we can in that regard. Beyond that I cannot go.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has there been any representation made for a prominent farmer to be put on the commission ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have had representations for men in various positions of life, and I do not know that I can say that the farmers have been an exception in that regard. We have not really got so far as to give much thought to the personnel of the commission.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand, from the complaints the farmers are making throughout the country, that they have very serious grievances against the railways in the matter of rates. I presume the hon. gentleman will do his duty by the farmers of this country, and have some important farmer appointed on this commission.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We shall try to see that the interests of the farmers are safeguarded as much as possible.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would it not be well to call this body the railway commission of Canada instead of the board of railway commissioners ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think it is much easier and simpler and more convenient to speak of it as a board. I do not think there is any objection to that word, and it is a very appropriate term.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is always referred to by the press as the railway commission and all the petitions ask parliament to establish a railway commission.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The railway board is declared in the interpretation clauses to mean the board of railway commissioners for Canada.


John Graham Haggart: What is the object of making this board a court of record ? You are providing also that it shall have an official seal, which shall be judicially noticed.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. The court seal is evidence of

itself. All the orders and regulations of the board are judicial determinations, and go out as such.


John Graham Haggart: Clause ten virtually provides that the chairman and deputy chairman must be lawyers, because; no matter what may be the opinion of the other commissioners, the decision of the chairman or deputy chairman on the question of law must be accepted by the others.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 10,
Not less than three commissioners shall attend at the hearing of every case, and the chief commissioner (or in his absence the deputy chief commissioner), shall preside, and his opinion upon any question, which in the opinion of the commissioners is a question of law, shall prevail. In any case where there is no opposing party, and no notice to be given to any interested party, any one commissioner may act alone for the board.


Andrew B. Ingram: There is too much law in this thing. Three commissioners are to bo appointed, two of whom must be lawyers. Where are you going to get the different interests represented ? The common sense man is certainly left out.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We must treat this section with particular respect, because it happens to be an exact transcript of the English Act. I think, however, we had better let it stand.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 11,
No commissioner shall be disqualified to act, by reason of interest, or of kindred or affinity to any person interested in any matter before the board ; but whenever any commissioner is interested or of kin or affinity to any such person, the Governor in Council may either upon the application of such commissioner or otherwise, appoint some disinterested person to act as commissioner pro hac vice. The Governor in Council may also appoint a commissioner pro hac vice in the case of sickness, absence or inability to act, of any commissioner.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I propose that we add to this subsection two
No commissioner shall hold, purchase, take or have interest for his own behalf in any stock, shares, bonds, debentures or other securities of any railway company subject to this Act, nor shall directly or indirectly have any interest in any device, plans, machine, patented process or article or any part thereof which may be required or used as a part of the equipment of railways, or of any rolling stock to be used thereon, and if any such stocks, shares, bonds, or other security, device, plans, machine, patented process or articles, or any part thereof or any interest therein, shall come to or vest in any such commissioner by will or succession for his own benefit, he shall, within three calendar months after the same was so given to or vested in him, absolutely sell or dispose of the same or his interest therein.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the result of this section. It does not seem to provide any sanction by this qualification by penalty. Perhaps it is provided further on in some subsequent section of the Act, but as it stands there is simply a prohibition.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It was not thought desirable to put it in the Bill in a form making it illegal for a commissioner to hold stocks, &c., lest, one of the commissioners might inadvertently invalidate the action of the commission. I think that, having declared that no commissioner shall hold these things, we can rely upon the Governor in Council enforcing it. It seems to me that the control of the government would be more effective than any other.


Samuel Barker: This clause will only prohibit a commissioner from holding stock for his own use?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Samuel Barker: Should it not go further ? Should it not prohibit him from holding such securities either for his own use or for the use of other persons ? Otherwise he might hold them for the use of a member of his family.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think this is the clause in the English Act.


Samuel Barker: But there is no reason why we should not improve upon that. I think a commissioner should not hold stocks either for himself or for anybody else while he is a commissioner.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not see any particular objections in providing that. But it may possibly cause some hardship. A man might have some stocks in a trust capacity and could not well relieve himself of his trusteeship. This seems to be pretty amply covered by providing that he shall not hold stocks on his own behalf. I have no doubt that, in framing the English Act they felt that this would be as far as it would be reasonable to carry it.


Samuel Barker: The object is to prevent the commissioner having any interest that might make him act in a manner contrary to his duty as commissioner. Holding these securities his judgment might be warped, but in the same way his judgment might be warped if he were holding the securities for his wife.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would not like to accept the suggestion without consideration. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) desires it I will consider the point. Let the section stand.
Section allowed to stand.

3S60
On section 12,
Each commissioner during his term of office reside in Canada in such part thereof which may, from time to time be designated or allowed by the Governor in Council.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I propose to amend that) so as to fix the residence of the commissioners at Ottawa. I move to strike out all the words after the words 'reside' and insert the following :	' At Ottawa in Canada.'


John Graham Haggart: ' At or near Ottawa ' is a better phrase. That is the judges' rule, and the designation of the Railway Act is within five miles.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: ' At or near ' is very indefinite. But there might be cases in which the Governor in Council could extend it to advantage. I will submit a new section, and in the meantime this might stand.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 13,
It shall be the duty of the board to hold sessions, and to hear any complaint, matter or thing determinable by the board or do any act, consistent with the power vested in the board as provided in this Act.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I move that section thirteen be expunged, and that the following be inserted In lieu thereof :
The commissioners shall devote the whole of their time to the performance of their duties under this Act, and shall not accept or hold any office of emolument inconsistent with this section.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 15,
Whenever special circumstances render it expedient to hold sessions without the city of Ottawa, the board may, subject to the approval of the minster, hold the same in any part of Canada.
Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Will the minister suggest some circumstances under which the board might sit in other places than Ottawa ? I know that people generally regard this as a very important feature of the commission, that is, its accessibility; and if the commission cannot be moved from Ottawa except under very important circumstances, it would detract a great deal from the value of the commission.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would suggest that instead of the words 'special circumstances ' some words be inserted like the ' public business ' or ' convenience of the public.' Let them do like the judge of the exchequer court. He is supposed to sit in Ottawa, but if the convenience of the witnesses require it, he sits in other places, because it is easier for one man to travel about than for a dozen people to travel to him. There Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
might be a large number of fruit growers or farmers from the west who wished to appear before the commission to give evidence, and in such case it would be better for the three commissioners to travel to St. Catharines, or Hamilton, or Toronto, or wherever these people might live, than to bring them all the way to Ottawa.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The object of this section is to enable the commissioners to do exactly what the hon. gentlemen desire them to do. that is, the court may be a migratory tribunal, and wherever the convenience of the public can be best served, it would certainly be the duty of the commission to move about. They may, for instance, need to go to some locality to view the ground, a variety of circumstances might arise which would render it expedient for the commission to meet in the locality where the controversy has arisen. But I would be willing to strike out the words ' special circumstances ' if there is any objection to them.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It would be better, because otherwise the commissioners might think it was their prima facie duty to stay in Ottawa, and they were not to move except when there was special reason.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am willing that the word ' special ' be struck out.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would also suggest that the words ' subject to the approval of the minister ' might as well be struck out too, so that the commissioners might have the right to go whenever and wherever they thought best. I am not saying the minister would improperly withhold his approval, but they might not always be able to reach him conveniently.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: At first I was of the opinion that this power of moving about should be subject to some supervision, as of the Governor in Council, because when left to their own discretion any tribunal might travel about the country for the purpose of junketting when they imagined they were on public business. Visits to other towns would always be attended by more or less expense, which has to be paid for out of the public purse. On further consideration, it seemed to be rather a cumbrous thing to leave it to the Governor in Council to deal with requests of that kind, and I thought it would be more expeditious to leave it to the minister or the acting minister to grant the power to hold sessions without the city of Ottawa. It might be desirable that the commissioners should be able to state to the minister when they wished to go on an expedition of this character.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why do you not say the same of your exchequer court judge ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is only one judge to begin with. When there is no business to do he cannot create a business, the business arises in the locality, and it is not a matter of discretion at all. But it is a different thing when there are three men with their clerics.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I believe it is contemplated that there shall be an appeal from these commissioners to the Governor in Council. Am I right about that ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then, the Minister of Railways and Canals who would start them on their journey to any particular place, would, to a certain extent, be prejudging the matter before they heard it and he would be hearing an appeal from their decision afterwards, because, he is one of the tribunal known as the Governor in Council and probably the most prominent one in a railway matter. I do not think the hon, minister should know anything about it beforehand. or should have anything to say about what the commissioners should do. I think that this commission would have the confidence of the people to a greater extent if we left that approval out.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood that we were to have a railway commission free from any political bias, but I find amendments with a political flavour are inserted too often to bear out that contention. Of course. I do not mean to insinuate that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals would abuse his position for any political advantage, but this course is not in keeping with the promise made in this House and throughout the country that this was to be a non-political commission, and that it would deal with questions independently of political considerations.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would like to see how you could make it any more so.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think if this section is to be amended in the direction which the hon. gentleman suggests we might as well not have any railway commission at all. We might as well go back to the old practice of leaving these questions to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. The hon. gentleman recommends certain things and as a rule the recommendations of the hon. gentleman would be carried out. If the hon. gentleman felt disposed to use his position for political effect he could easily do so. Farmers are complaining about drainage across lands and other complaints are made in respect to railways and if the commissioners are not to have it in their power to leave Ottawa and go to any particular district to remedy a complaint. I cannot see what use this commission is going to be. They should be perfectly independent in regard to that. The minister must remember that their proceedings are subject to the condemnation of the Governor in Council. If they do not meet with the opproval of the Governor in Council, or if they do anything that cannot be justified before the Governor in Council, he can dismiss them. Therefore. I think it would be unwise 1o amend this Bill in the direction which the hon. gentleman suggests. It would be better to leave it to the commission and hold the commission strictly responsible for their conduct.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would it not be a little confusing if when an application were made to this commission to redress grievances that existed in a certain locality, and it was necessary that the trial should take place there the commission would be obliged to say : We must first get the consent of the Minister of Railways and Canals ? Would it not raise the question as to whether they would have to apply to the minister to get his consent for the commission to go there and then apply to the commission to take up the case ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 
John Graham Haggart: Why do you keep in the word ' private ?' This is a court record.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If any party to the complaint wishes to have the matter heard openly it may be so heard. I presume it will he open, but there may be occasions when it might he desirable to sit in private.


John Graham Haggart: In their deliberations they might sit in private, but in bearing cases they ought not to sit in private.


Andrew B. Ingram: For instance railway companies and their employees have difficulties

and it may be very important that there should be private or secret conferences in the matter.


John Graham Haggart: The commissioners have nothing to do with that.


Andrew B. Ingram: The commissioners have to do with matters of rates or grievances.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They would have nothing to do with any grievances with reference to labour troubles.


John Graham Haggart: This is a court of record and as such it should not sit in private.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend is not familiar with the proceedings of courts of record.


John Graham Haggart: It should not hear cases in private.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The board of railway commissioners in England sits in private, although it is a court of record and it is especially authorized by law to do it.


John Graham Haggart: Yes. I know. This is a copy of the English Railway Act, but I do not see any reason why a court of record, unless it is making up its judgment, should sit in private.


Andrew B. Ingram: Suppose it was dealing with the matter of rates ?


John Graham Haggart: Then the public have a right to know all about it.
Mr, INGRAM. It might be necessary to exclude a certain party from the court in reference to a matter of that kind.


John Graham Haggart: The objection is now that some case might come within the rule, but this section gives power to the commissioners to hear all cases in private.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Not if any of the parties complaining desire that the court shall be open.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the parties agree in not desiring a public hearing why should they not be allowed to have a private hearing ? I beg to move :
That the word ' two ' he inserted in the 25th line and that after the word ' quorum ' ihe remaining words be changed so as to read : No vacancy in their body shall impair the right of the remaining commissioners to act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to,
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock) moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken to-morrow.


Andrew B. Ingram: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We will go on with this Railway Bill as the first government Order.


Robert Laird Borden: And go right along with it to-morrow.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes ; in the evening possibly there may be Supply.


Robert Laird Borden: I wish to give notice that when the House is next moved into Committee of Supply, 1 will move an amendment substantially as follows :
This House is of opinion that the tariff of customs duties should give such protection to iron and steel industries as will not only secure to our own producers and manufacturers Lhe Canadian market in articles now produced or manufactured in this country, but will also develop and sustain the manufacture in Canada of other iron and steel products which at present are imported in large quantities from other countries.
And that the present tariff of customs duties should be now readjusted on this principle.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I have delayed for a few days on account of the absence of the Minister of Finance, as I thought it would be desirable that he should be present when the motion is made. If the House is to be moved into Committee of Supply to-morrow, I will move this resolution ; not with the idea that it shall necessarily be regarded as a motion of want of confidence, but with the hope that the government may, notwithstanding the declaration of the Minister of Finance in his budget speech, be inclined to give consideration to the ideas expressed in the resolution and to act in accordance therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 2, 1903.