1903-05-18

FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 177) respecting the Klondike Mines Railway Company.-Mr. Mclsaac.

Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
proceeded with, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question. In a notable speech made a day or two ago by the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, the following appears, according to a despatch in the Ottawa ' Citizen ' :
The colonial secretary proceeded strongly to urge the necessity in order to preserve the great empire that the trade of the colonies should be secured. Canada had offered exceptional advantages, he said, which Great Britain did not dare accept because of the narrow interpretation of the doctrine of free trade, the policy of dictation, and interference by foreign powers, Mr. Chamberlain said he was Justified by the belief that Great Britain was so wedded to its fiscal system that it could not defend its colonies. This was a position not intended by the pioneers of free trade who, if they were alive to-day would agree to a treaty of preference and reciprocity with the empire's children. The speaker said he believed that an entirely wrong interpretation had been placed upon the doctrine of free trade but that the_country ought not to be bound by this and it should not hesitate to resort to retaliation if necessary wherever the interests between colonies and the home country were threatened.
The Right Hon. Mr. Chamberlain refers to two things : first, that Canada had made very exceptional offers to England in regard to a mutual preferential trade ; the other is that England desires to defend her colonies in case of their being attacked commercially by foreign countries. I wish to ask the government if they are prepared to lay a memorandum of these offers on the Table of the House or to take the Canadian parliament into their confidence, and give us information as to what these offers were? That I think we are entitled to. I also wish to ask whether any correspondence is being carried on with the imperial government with regard to the threatened action of Germany ; and, if so, are the government prepared to give this House any information regarding it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: In answer to the first portion of my hon. friend's question, I may say that we have already taken the House into our confidence on the subject, for the offer which was made to the British government of a further preference as between British and foreign manufactures, is published in the Conference Blue-book as an imperial paper, to which access is easily had, and the memo, was fully read by myself in the budget speech. My hon. friend will find in that speech the offer we made the imperial authorities at the colonial conference.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is the only offer.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes. With regard to the second part of my hon. friend's question, we have had no recent correspondence with the imperial government on the action of Germany.



IS, 1903

Mr. .T. CHARLTON (North Norfolk).: I would ask whether the attention of the government has been called to the alleged intention of the German government to unload upon this country a supply of ex-convicts ? The action recently taken by the United States with regard to the deportation of criminals followed by this report that the German government intends sending this class of immigrants to Canada, impels me to ask whether the government are giving the subject any attention.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: We have received no official information that the German authorities contemplate any such policy. If we found that the German authorities were attempting such a policy, we would take immediate action to repeal it. My impression is that we have sufficient power, under existing laws, to deal with such a question, but if our powers should not be adequate, we shall have no hesitation in asking parliament to supplement them.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. S3) to incorporate the New Canadian Company, Limited.-Sir. Lemieux.
On section 1,
Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: What is the necessity of declaring that this work is for the general advantage of Canada ?
MfV LEMIEUX. The company intend establishing a steamship company whose steamers will ply between England and Gaspe.


John Graham Haggart: Although this is said to be a foreign company, I do not see the necessity of our declaring that this work is for the general advantage of Canada.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I have consulted the officers of the Department of Justice on that point. The Bill had already passed the House and was referred back, at the request of the hon. Minister of Justice, in order that some informalities might be remedied. The officers of the department gave No. 53 Vic., Chap. 104, and 84 Vic., Chap. 186, as precedents for this very clause, in the case of other English companies doing business in this country.


John Graham Haggart: The declaration may be necessary to bring under the jurisdiction of the Dominion a work which would (otherwise ibe purely local or provincial. But 1 do not think that it is at all necessary that we should assume all the jurisdictions and powers of a local government even to grant a charter to a corporation to do this particular kind of work.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: There were txvo considerations that entered into the matter in connection with this declaration when the Bill was before the Railway Commission. In the first place, the company is given power to carry on an ocean steamship business to foreign ports, and it was thought that possibly a question might be raised as to the power of this parliament lo pass such legislation. Therefore this clause was inserted. There is also a clause providing for the construction of tramways and other works, which come within the general definition of railways in the Railway Act.


John Graham Haggart: Are these supplementary to the powers the company has ns a corporation in Great Britain ? If I understand rightly, this Bill gives them all the powers they have as a corporated company in Great Britain, plus the large powers.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think it gives them all the powers they have obtained under the English Act.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As the clause read at first, they had all these powers, but these were restricted by the amendment.
On section 4,


John Graham Haggart: The company seems to have two different entities-one in Great Britain, under which it has powers to issue bonds and debentures, and we are now giving it another set of powers in this Act. Under which entity is it to have existence here ? In this Bill we do not do away with the power of the English corporation and give it entirely a new set.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the hon. gentleman will read the second clause as it originally was, he will see that they would have special powers and also all the powers they had under their charter in England. But, under these amendments their powers are restricted and they have only the special powers which are enumerated in the Bill. And. of course, they cannot go beyond what they have in this charter.


John Graham Haggart: Under this Bill the company is ' declared a body politic and corporate within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada ; and that this Act and the Company's Clauses Act shall apply to the company and its undertaking instead of said Company's Acts of Great Britain.' It is an entirely different entity in Great Britain. The law of Great Britain applies to it over there as to the issuing of bonds, debentures. &c. The company in Canada has its powers and the company in Great Britain has its powers. That is what I say.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



CONSOLIDATED TRUST CORPORATION.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee oil Bill (No. 121) to incorporate the Consolidated Trust Corporation.-Mr. McColl.
On section 12,
Mr. MONK.: There is something strange about this clause. It enacts that the :
Honeys, properties and securities received or held by the corporations upon trust or as agent shall not be liable for the debts or obligations of the corporation.
Still,- it would seem that one of the debts or obligations of the corporation is receiving money on trust. The clause worded in this way seems to be anomalous. We ought to add, at any rate, that the moneys received on trust by the corporation shall be liable for the payment of the trust.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The purpose is, whether it is clearly expressed or not, that these trust funds shall be liable to the trustees and not for the general purposes of the corporation. If they have not expressed that, I have no doubt that is what they intended.
On section 18,


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the minister think that this is a very wise provision ? We provide in section 18 :
The powers and authority hereby granted to the corporation shall not have any force or effect in any province in any respect in which they are inconsistent with the laws of such province.
1 am afraid there are a great many provisions in this Bill which are at variance with the ordinary law respecting trusts in our own province, but still, when we have a trustee I do not think we should put that limitation upon the company's powers.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think it will probably be understood to mean that inasmuch as the management of trusts is a matter coming under the authority of the provincial law this Act can affect only them in so far as the provincial law will permit it. We cannot regulate ordinary trustees. This happens to belong to the class of subjects in which there is both provincial and Dominion authority-provincial authority as to the regulation of the trust, and Dominion authority as to the regulation of the company. A trustee is only permitted under provincial authority to invest his money in certain directions, and this Bill could not change that authority'. I think that is what they are particularly aiming at.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



RELIEF OF WILLIAM FRANCIS SCHOOLEY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 128) for the relief of William Francis Schooley.- Mr. Boyd.
John Graham Haggart: On the preamble,


John Charlton: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise for the purpose of opposing the reporting of this Bill. I notice that according to the allegations of the Bill the former wife of Mr. Schooley abandoned him fourteen years ago, that she obtained a decree of divorce in one of the American states eleven years ago and that she married in the state of Michigan five years ago. These statements, assuming them to be facts, and as such they appear upon the record, would entitle Mr. Schooley to a divorce beyond question, but I rise to point out the imperfection of our law in regard to the granting of decrees of divorce. Mr. Schooley lives in Manitoba. The business of prosecuting this suit in Ottawa is one that would involve very serious expense. If Mr. Schooley was entitled to relief under our laws he has been subjected to a hardship, and to a cost in this matter that would seem to be unjustifiable, and I rise to point out that in cases where the law provides a remedy, in cases where the circumstances warrant the granting of divorce some more speedy and less expensive method should be adopted. If Mr. Schooley had been permitted to appeal in this case to a judge in Manitoba near at hand, if this case had been tried before a divorce judge, and a court could be established without additional cost by merely putting that additional duty upon the judges there, he could have obtained his relief speedily and he could have obtained it at small cost. He lias been debarred for five years from making this attempt which he is now making to get justice to which he is entitled. In all of these proceedings we are pursuing a course which is entirely unjustifiable, a course which is expensive and one which in many cases, I have no doubt, prevents people who are entitled to relief from obtaining that relief because of the difficulties attending this course of procedure, because of the expense of coming from a distant province to the capital of the country and of the attendant expense and worry of prosecuting this appeal.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


Mr. BOYD moved :: That a message be sent to the Senate to return to that House the evidence, &c., taken before the Standing Committee of the Senate,- to whom was referred the Bill No. 12S (letter B of the Senate), intituled : 'An Act for the relief of William Francis Schooley.'


Mr. INGRAM.: Mr. Speaker, I think, before that motion is put, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) having made some reference to the subject of divorce, it does seem to me that the law as it now stands is a rich man's law as against the poor man. I think where the case is such as the hon. gentleman has described, and as the evidence bears out a more rea-

sonable method ought to be adopted whereby a man might be placed in a position to secure a divorce at less cost than the applicant now before the House has been subjected to. I think the government ought lo be in a position to make some kind of statement in reply to the speech of the hon. member for North Norfolk. This is a very important question. I, for one, do not wish to encourage the granting of divorces, but at the same time a circumstance of this kind is one that should be considered and no undue hardship should be placed upon a man who has been so unfortunate as this man has been.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a case that ought to appeal to the sense of the House. The very fact of a man having to come down to the Senate here all the way from Manitoba is evidence to the House that there should be some better way of dealing with divorces than exists in the Dominion at the present time. This case would be settled in about half a day by a judge of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. I think that public opinion will in time compel the government to do something so that people will not be put to this expense. If this were a poor man he would have been obliged to exist without any redress all his lifetime,' but because he is in good circumstances he is enabled to come down and seek redress through this-I was going to say-inhuman channel of obtaining it. In all cases if any British subject is aggrieved there should be some way of obtaining redress and that as quickly as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 113) to incorporate the Sault St. Louis Light and Power Company.-Mr. Blckerdike.
On section 7,
Thomas Simpson Sproule: You give them the right to do a great many things, some of which are necessary to carry on their undertaking, but others would be quite independent of the undertaking. You do not make any distinction. We seem to give them rights whether for the purpose of their undertaking or not. It seems to me we should not go so far as that.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: This is simply a copy of the Bill which you have been passing here for years in favour of similar companies. There is no change in the usual phraseology. If you give these powers to other companies, I suppose there is no reason why you should not give them to this company.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



ERIE. ONTARIO POWER COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 134) to incorporate the Erie, Ontario Power Company.-Mr. German.
On section 15.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: We put into another Bill a few minutes ago a clause to protect the rights of municipalities by imposing on the company the conditions laid down by the municipality in the by-law. If that was necessary in the other Bill, it should be here.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: I beg to move that the committee rise and report progress, and ask leave to sit again, in order to amend that clause.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 143) respecting the Canadian North-west Irrigation Company.-Mr. Oliver.
On section 4,
John Charlton: This covers a rather extensive area.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: I can see no good reason why the area should not be as extensive as described here for the purposes of irrigation and canals and other useful works. If the work is useful, it will be useful throughout a large area.


John Graham Haggart: That is right. I do not think we should stop the Bill on account of the extent of the area unless it gives exclusive rights, which I do not think this does.


John Charlton: I do not wish to insist upon the point I have raised, asking for information, but it strikes me really that this is a very indefinite definition of the territory covered by this Bill, and of the powers of the company. It clearly covers one degree of latitude a distance of seventy miles, and all west of the one hundred and tenth degree of west longitude. This is an enormous area. They can operate through to the Pacific ocean if they desire to go so far. When we are granting powers of this indefinite and general character, we ought to have information as to the object of the company. I do not wrish to obstruct the passage of the Bill, but I do not suppose it would interfere with its progress to have it lie over until we have more definite information.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: What does the minister say is meant by the expression here ' and other purposes ' ? It seems to go further than is necessary for an irrigation company.

This might turn out to be a waterworks company.


Mr. COCHRANE.: The promoters of the Bill claimed that the object was to use the water for milling and other purposes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There cannot be an objection to allowing the water to be used for any purpose. If you are giving them the powers to make the canals and take the water, why not use it for fire purposes, for milling purposes or any other ?


Matthew Henry Cochrane: This matter was brought in question in the committee that considered this Bill. The river, in this case, I understand is Milk river. It flows through a section which this company intends to irrigate. But they might utilize the water so as to prevent it flowing on for the benefit of a part of the country which is now irrigated naturally by the river. This is arid so far as the production of cereals is concerned, but I understand that it is good grazing country. I think it is a very serious question whether we should allow one company to control all the water in the river, and, perhaps, so lessen the flow of the river as to deprive the settlers who have taken up the land for ranching purposes, of water for their cattlo.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No doubt, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cochrane) would be right in his conclusions if his premises were sound.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I would ask the hon. minister to tell me in what way they are not sound ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I was just going to call attention to that point. In the first place, this Bill does not confer any exclusive right. It is open to parliament to incorporate as many irrigation companies as it pleases for that territory. We have not deprived ourselves of the jurisdiction merely because we give this company the right to construct these canals and irrigate a portion of the territory. Moreover, we do not give to this company the power to divert the waters of the rivers. The only way in which they can take property which they do not buy by private contract, is by availing themselves of the expropriation powers contained in the General Railway Act, and I cannot conceive of their expropriating a river. I know they would not get permission to divert a river or deflect it. That is not a supposable case.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: We are not supposing anything. But the understanding in the committee was that they had power under the Bill to take the water out of the river for the purposes of the company. If not, what use is the Bill ?
Mr. McCarthy.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They have not the power to divert or deflect the river.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I did not say they had. But they might so diminish the quantity in the river that it might be useless for a part of the section of the country through which it flows.


John Charlton: Under section 7, of the Act, it provides that ' The company may draw from rivers and other waters, the waters necessary for the purposes of the company.' That is rather unlimited power.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not read the whole Bill, and I think it did not come before the Railway Committee.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: No, it came before the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Railway Committee had a Bill of this kind before it a year or two ago, and I think we went into it pretty carefully, and provided what we thought were the necessary safeguards. I cannot answer for this Bill, for I had not seen the Bill until this moment. I can see that some of the clauses, as for instance, clause 0, would need to be materially altered. But I do not see any objection to the conferring of powers given under section 4.
On section 5,


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: This section has been amended so as to read as follows :
The company may acquire and dispose of lands in the district within which the company is authorized to operate, provided that the total quantity of land to he held by the company at any one time shall not exceed two thousand square miles.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Is it a land company as well ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not referring to the quantity of land-I do not know whether two thousand square miles would be deemed an excessive quantity or not-it is to be noted that this company asks to be incorporated for irrigation purposes and not to be created with the powers of a land company. But under this clause they would be authorized to deal in lands. Certainly, the section is defective in that way. It ought to be provided that the company may acquire the lands necessary for the purposes for which the company is authorized, and may dispose of lands which it does not require for those purposes. We always give such power.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I would say to the minister that it goes a good deal further

than that, as I understand it. The promoters say that there are lands higher than the waters to be taken by the company would enable them to irrigate. They want to get control of all the lands ; then, they could irrigate a certain portion of every lot-say fifteen, twenty or thirty acres for each two hundred acre lot-thus providing an area in which cereals and vegetables could be grown, but enabling them to sell the whole lot.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: 
John Graham Haggart: I would say to my hon. friend that I think I understand the object of the Bill. It is for the purpose of irrigating a section of land which was granted to a railway company from Lethbridge to the boundary, of which Mr. Gault was the proprietor. A portion of that land was sold to the Mormon settlement near Milk river. They have irrigation works there which are a credit to the North-west Territories and a benefit to the people, and the land there is flourishing now in consequence. This company was formed to take over the rest of the land for the purpose of irrigating it and selling it to the actual settlers. The object of the company seems to be a bona fide one, and a worthy one. namely, the development of that section of the country. I cannot understand what objection there can be to the Bill. It is clear from what I understand, that the object of the Bill is to authorize the taking over of these lands which were granted to this coal company of which Mr. Gault was the president. an English company, for the purpose of irrigating that portion of the land and selling it to actual settlers. The land as it is now is entirely worthless, but when irrigated it will become valuable, and will be sold to settlers. As my hon. friend says, the promoter of the Bill ought to be here to explain it to us. We know nothing about it, and we have a right to explanations.


Peter Macdonald: The promoter of the Bill (Mr. Oliver) is sick in hospital, and has been for some weeks.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In the absence of the promoter of the Bill, I think the committee had better rise.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 88) respecting the Mutual Fire Insurance Company of the city of Montreal, and to change its name to ' The Montreal and Quebec Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. LaRiviere.
Bill (No. 90) respecting the Niagara-Well-and Power Company, Limited, and to change its name to ' The Niagara-Welland Power Company.'-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill No. 91) to incorporate the Dominion Gas Improvement Company.-Mr. Belcourt.
Bill (No. 92) respecting the Dominion Burglary Guarantee Company, Limited, and to change its name to ' The Dominion Guarantee Company, Limited.'-Mr. Bickerdike.


Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	What are the dimensions ot the site acquired by the government for the new post office at L'Assomption ?
2.	Who recommended the selection of said site to the government ?
3.	Were any other sites but the present one suggested to the government ?
4.	What is the estimated cost of the new building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Who is the superintendent of works in connection with the construction of the new post office at L'Assomption, and what is his business ?
2.	What remuneration does he receive for his services.
3.	What is the total amount paid to said superintendent to date ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 1.	(a) Louis Brouillet. (b) Do not know.
2.	Seventy-five dollars per month.
3.	One hundred and twelve dollars and fifty cents to 1st May, 1903.


Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	At what date did the government purchase from Vital Racette a portion of lot No. 165 on the official plan of L'Assomption ?
2.	What price was paid for the lot so purchased ?
3.	Is the government aware that it has paid for that portion of lot No. 165 the same price that had been paid, some time previously, for the entire lot ?
4.	Is the government aware that the person who sold that portion of lot No. 165 secured a profit of $950 by the transaction ?
5.	What is the name of the notary who carried out the transaction for the government and before whom the deeds were passed ?
6.	To whom was the purchase price paid ?
7.	Is there any correspondence in regard to this purchase and to the post office site, between the government and Vital Racette, Phi-neas Viger, Rodolphe Arbour, C. Laurler, M.P., Mr. Joseph Ed. Duhamel ?
8.	Has the government received any petitions protesting against the choice made of a site for the post office ?


The MINISTER. OF PUBLIC WORKS. (Hon. Janies Sutherland) :: 1.	December 23rd, 3901.
2.	One thousand one hundred and fifty dollars.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	Joseph E. Duhamel.
G. The cheque in payment was made in favour of Vital Racette and J. E. Duhamel, the agent of the Department of Justice.
7.	Yes, from Vital Racette and Joseph E. Duhamel.
8.	Yes, one petition dated 21st March, 1903, recommending change of site.
A contract had, however, been made on the 1st December, 1902, for the construction of the building on site first selected.



RAILWAY ACCIDENT AT WEST LORNE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARKE-by Mr. Lancaster-asked
1.	Has the attention of the government been called to the verdict, or is the government aware of the fact, that the coroner's jury empanelled to inquire into the cause of the railway accident which occurred at West Lome, Ontario, on the 29th day of April, 1903, as a result of which three trainmen were killed, have returned the following verdict :-' That Thomas Luton, John McNeil, and John Elgar, on the 29th day of April, at the unincorporated village of West Lome, came to their deaths as a result of a rear end collision between two trains on the Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway. And we find that the said collision was caused by the culpable neglect of the Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway Company, in not adopting a proper system as to the running of their trains, and of not furnishing and supplying to their trainmen proper rules, so intelligible to their employees that no misunderstanding could arise as to the duties of their trainmen. We further recommend that semaphores he forthwith constructed on the said railway, at proper distances from the station.
2.	In view of the foregoing verdict, is it the intention of the government to forthwith institute a full and exhaustive inquiry, on oath, into the causes which culminated in the accident
Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: above referred to ? And if it shall appear, after such inquiry, that the verdict of the said coroner's jury was justified by the facts, is it the intention of the government to proceed against, or to cause to be proceeded against, the responsible officials of the said company, who are declared to have been guilty of culpable neglect, as a result of which the three trainmen above named were killed ?
3.	_Has the government yet been able to find an Individual possessing the precise qualifications that would enable him to act for and on behalf of the government, in conducting full and exhaustive inquiries and investigations into the causes of railway accidents which may occur in Canada from time to time ?
4.	If no such individual has yet been found, what steps, if any, are the government taking to secure the services of such an individual ?
5.	Were the rules under which the trains of the Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway Company are operated in Canada, submitted to and approved by the government ; and if so, on what date were such rules authorized by the government ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The attention of the government has not been called to the verdict of the jury in the case mentioned, but if the facts are as stated in the question, it would appear to devolve upon the provincial authorities, as charged with the administration of criminal justice, to take any action which might be proper in the premises.
The government has not yet been able to select a person possessing the precise qualifications for taking charge of investigations in case of railway accidents, but are on the alert to secure just such a person as is required.
In the meantime a temporary appointment has been made, and an investigation held in the case of the Windsor Junction collision on the Intercolonial Railway.
I am informed that no rules were submitted by the Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway Company for the approval of the government.



FRUIT SHIPMENTS IN COLD STORAGE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SMITH (Wentworth)-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	What value of fruit was shipped to Europe in cold storage in each of the calendar years 1S97, 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902 ?
2.	What value of fruit was shipped in cooled chambers to Europe in seasons 1901 and 1902, respectively ?
3.	In what steamers, other than cold storage steamers, were thermographs placed by the agents of the government ; and in what compartments, other than cold storage compartments, if any, during the season of 1902 ?
4.	How many thermograph readings have been
taken and now in possession of the Department of Agriculture (a) gf temperature in cold storage chambers ;	(b) temperature in cooled
chambers : (c) temperature in ventilated chambers ; id) temperature in other parts of vessels unventilated ;	(e) temperature on deck of
steamers ?
5.	In what further steamers were cooling plants placed in the season of 1902, if any ?

6.	In what further steamers were mechanical ventilating plants placed in season of 1902, if
* any ?
7.	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 ?
8.	How much to induce them to put in cooling plans, since 1896 ?
9.	How much to induce jthem to put in cold storage plants, since 1806 ?
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: It would be impossible to give at this time a satisfactory answer to tide question so as to convey the information sought for. I would ask my hon. friend to move for a return.



CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES AND GUARANTEE COMPANIES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARKE-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	Are the funds deducted from the salaries of civil service employees, for guarantee, accumulating with the government ; or are they paid over to guarante companies ?
2.	If the funds are in the hands of the government, what do they now amount to ? And what was the amount in premiums paid in during the last fiscal year ?
3.	If the funds are paid to guarantee companies, what are the names of such companies ; and wha.t amount we paid to each such company during the last fiscal year ?
4.	Have any claims arisen on the guarantee companies during the past fiscal year ; and if so, what is the amount of such claims ?
5.	Are there any disputed claims ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: I will give the answer as regards the Post Office Department:
Civil service employees in the Post Office Department are insured by the department direct under the assessment principle. The former guarantee system was bonds from guarantee companies or private citizens, the bonds of three different guarantee companies being accepted. Upon the establishment of the assessment system the department for a time maintained sub-insurance with these three companies, the amount of which, however, has gradually diminished. The total amount paid for such insurance for the last fiscal year was $151.75, the Guarantee Company of North America being the company in question. Nothing was paid to any other company. The total accumulations from assessments of civil service employees amounted on the 14th instant to $7,019. The total amount of such assessments for the last fiscal year was $1,913.30. No claims in respect of civil service employees have arisen against any guarantee company during the past fiscal year and no claims are in dispute.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: In regard to employees in the Custom service :
1. The funds deducted from the salaries of Customs' employees for guarantee, are
paid over to guarantee companies half yearly at the end of June and December.
3.	The names of the guarantee companies and the amounts paid to each for the fiscal year ending 30th June, 1902, are as follows : Dominion of Canada Guarantee and Acci-deut Insurance Company, $1,650.30; Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited, $906.60 ; London Guarantee and Accident Company, Limited, $890.25 ; Guarantee Company of North America, $899.85.
4.	The claims made on the guarantee companies during the past fiscal year (exclusive of any otherwise paid) were $2,264.27.
5.	The guarantee companies have not disputed any claims.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: So far as relates to NorthWest Mounted Police :
1.	Paid over to the guarantee companies.
2.	Amount paid in premiums last fiscal year, $341.86.
3.	Guarantee Company of
North America.. .. $311 86 Dominion of Canada Guarantee and Accident Company________	30 00

4.	No.
5.	No.



PLAINS OF ABRAHAM.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN-by Mr. Monk-asked :
1.	Does the deed of transfer by the Ursuline Nuns, of Quebec, to the government or to the city of Quebec, of the Plains of Abraham, contain a provision, in virtue of which the said plains may be used for military parades, reviews, manoeuvres, &c.?
2.	In the negative, has any other contract or agreement been entered into with the city of Quebec, providing for such use ?
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden) :: 1.	No.
2.	Yes.



BREAKWATER. SUMMERSIDE, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEFURGEY-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	Has the government stopped the work on the breakwater at Summerside, Prince Edward Island ?
2.	Who were the contractors for said work, and what was the contract price ?
3.	How much of the work has been completed, and what amount has been expended therefor?
4.	Have the plans and specifications for said work proved practical and satisfactory ; and have the contractors found them workable ?
5.	Have the stone and other materials in the work now completed complied with the plans and specifications ?
6.	Is it the intention of the government to complete this work ; and if not, why not ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 1. No.



2.	(a) McDonald and Moffatt (b) $55,900.
3.	The amount paid on account of work is to date, $3,110; the work done represents about 250 feet in length, this near shore end.
4.	Yes, as far as department is concerned; the contractors have desired to suggest changes, there was nothing in writing, suggestions were verbal.
5.	No, the stone has not.
6.	The matter is receiving consideration.



LIGHTING OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS, OTTAWA.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROSAMOND-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	From whom does the government obtain the supply of electric current for lighting the public buildings in Ottawa ?
2.	From whom does the government obtain the supply of electric current for running certain elevators in certain of the public buildings in Ottawa ?
3.	Is there a contract for the supply of light?
If so. with whom ? What is the price paid ? What is the date of the contract ? And when does it expire ?
4.	Is there a contract for the supply of power ? If so, with whom ? What is the price paid ? What is the date of the contract, and when does it expire ?
5.	Has a contract been entered into for supplying electric power required for the elevator being installed in the post office in Ottawa ? If so. what is the price ? What is the date of the contract, and when does it expire ?
6.	Has a contract been given for supply of electric current for Experimental Farm buildings ? If so, what is the price paid ; the date of contract ; and when doe3 it expire ?
7.	Were tenders invited for supplying power for the Ottawa post office elevator ? If so, from whom ?
8.	Were tenders invited for supply of electric current for Experimental Farm buildings ? If so. from whom ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 1.	Ottawa Electric Company.
2.	Ottawa Electric Company.
3.	Yes, with the Ottawa Electric Company. The price is $2.25 per lamp per annum, for the first 3,000 lamps and $2 per lamp for the balance, date of contract, 19tli January, 1898, made for one year, renewable.
4. No, a fixed rate of $40 per annum per kilo watt, has been agreed upon with the Ottawa Electric Company by the chief architect.
5.	Yes, $300 per annum, 24th April, 1003, during pleasure, which is considered by chief architect a low figure. Motor is twenty horse power.
G. Not by this department.
7.	A tender was asked from the Ottawa Electric Company.
8.	Same as No. six.



BRIGADE CAMP AT SUSSEX, N.B.

[Stage Direction]
Air. FOWLER-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
Is it the intention of the government to hold j a brigade camp at Sussex, N.B., this year ? If 1
Robert Franklin Sutherland: so, will it be a summer or a fall camp ? And what corps will be called out for drill ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DE. FENCE (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden).: It is the intention of the government to hold a brigade camp at Sussex this fall. The list of corps to be called out will be published in due course.



MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS.

[Stage Direction]
Copies of the correspondence exchanged between the Dominion government and that of the province of Quebec regarding the following claims produced by the latter :-
1.	$1,425,855.00, being the share of the province of Quebec in the indemnity paid by the United States government as a compensation for the advantages accorded to American fishermen.
2.	$490,000, indemnity due to the province of Quebec for leases and licenses granted by the federal government to fish in the interior and salt waters within the limits of the said province.-Mr. Lemieux.
Copy of all documents whatsoever relating to the commutation of the sentence of death pronounced against Joseph A. Mathurin ; including therein the report of the judge who presided at the trial ; the permission of the judge for the production of such report having been obtained.-Mr. Lavergne by Mr. Mareil (Bona-venture).
Copies of all papers, letters, telegrams or other documents, relating to the purchase of land for a drill shed in the town of Woodstock, N.B. And also, copies of all papers, letters, telegrams or other documents, relating to the construction of a drill shed on said land.-Mr. Hale, by Mr. Sproule.
Copy of receipt given for price of acquisition of site of new post office at L'Assomption ; copies of all cheques issued in payment of any sums expended in connection with the purchase of site of said new post office, or expenses connected therewith.-Mr. Monk.
Copies of all letters addressed to the government by Rodolphe Arbour, Phineas Viger, Vital Racette, Joseph Ed. Duhamel, Charlemagne Laurier, M.P., and all answers thereto, in respect to a new post office for the town of L'Assomption, in regard to the contract for the acquisition of a po3t office site. Also a copy of the contract of sale ; copies of tenders for building said post office, and of all reports sent in by the architect, in reference to said site and new building.-Mr. Monk.
Statement setting forth :-
1.	The quantity of refined sugar imported into Canada from the 1st of January to the 31st December, 1902.
2.	The quantity of raw sugar imported during the same period ; and giving the name of the country whence such sugar was imported.- Mr. Madore by Mr. Mareil (Bonaventure).

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 15) to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1900.- Mr. Clancy.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: I wish to substitute the following for section 1 of the Bill :

1.	Section 112 of the Dominion Elections Act, chapter 12, of the statutes of 1900, is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor :
112. Every one who, directly or indirectly by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes use of, or threatens to make use of, any force, violence, or restraint, or inflicts, or threatens the infliction by himself, or by or through any other person, of any injury, damage, harm or loss, or in any manner practices intimidation upon or against any person, in order to induce or compel such person to vote for any candidate, or to refrain from voting, or on account of such person having voted for any candidate or refrained from voting, at an election, or who by abduction, duress, or any false or fradulent pretense, device or contrivance, impedes, prevents or otherwise interferes with, the free exercise of the franchise of any voter, or thereby compels, or induces or prevails upon, any voter either to vote for any candidate or to refrain from voting at an election, shall be deemed to have committed the offence of undue influence, and is guilty of an indictable offence, and shall in addition to any penalty thereby incurred, forfeit the sum of $200 to any person who sues therefor, with costs.
2.	It shall be deemed a false pretense within the meaning of this section to represent to a voter, directly or indirectly, that the ballot to be used, or the mode of voting at the election is not secret.'
I think that carries out the intention of my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy).


Mr. CLANCY.: I think that meets my view.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 39) to make further provision for the prevention of cruelty to animals, and to amend the Criminal Code, 1892.-Mr. Brock.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I did not happen to he present when this Bill was called the other day, and I understand that the matter was referred to by the Minister of Justice, who, I presume, would be looking at the questions involved purely from a legal standpoint. It appears to me that some of the provisions of the Bill would have a prejudicial bearing in respect to railway traffic. I shall call his attention to one or two considerations which perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) would think it worth considering before proceeding with the Bill further. The hon. gentleman desires that the word ' animal ' should have a wider interpretation than it now has an the Criminal Code, and that it shall not only include cattle and other animals, but domestic animals, such as cats and dogs. It would not be practicable to do that. The general law does not contemplate the extension of the meaning of the word animal to such an extent as to embrace cats, dogs and other domestic animals. It would make these provisions of the present Criminal 102J
Code comparatively unworkable, and would not fit the case, under the general scope of the Bill after it had been amended as the hon. gentleman proposes. Its bearing on the railways is, first, in this direction. Certain provisions are to be found in the sections which the hon. gentleman proposes by a sub-clause to amend, which appear to go as far in the way of requiring cattle to be looked after while in transit as parliament at the time thought it was expedient to go, so as to ensure their being made as comfortable as possible, watered and fed, and when unladen, provided with fresh hay and straw for bedding. In actual experience it has transpired that there is really more hazard in requiring that the cars should be provided with bedding of this description, by reason of the danger of fire, than there is of advantage to the railways which at present have discretion in the matter, and which do not provide bedding of that character. It is said that hay and straw, for a while after it is put in, until it has become saturated or moistened, is very likely to take fire ; and occasions of this kind have occurred. We have therefore to reflect whether or not we would do well to impose on the railway companies the obligation proposed by these clauses of my hon. friend's Bill, when it would be attended with these possible difficulties and dangers. Then, my hon. friend would have the law so changed as to require certain constructions to be provided in the car whereby animals would be kept separate in a particular way. What actually happens now on most of the railways, is this. The railway companies put up loose boards in such a way as to keep the animals apart at the start, but after the train is on its way these are removed because they say they do more harm than good. But my hon. friend would have these partitions put up as fixtures. That would entail a good deal of work and injure the cars,- and could be only of use a very short time. The objection to section one, is that it makes the expression ' animal ' include all animals, which is contrary to the general tenor of the Criminal Code. 'The objection to section two is that it would apply to dogs and cats as well as to sheep and hogs. Another objection is that, no matter how short the distance these animals have to be carried, whenever a stoppage takes place, fresh bedding must be put in. Perhaps it it might only be a few hours before the cars would be unladen again. For instance, when cattle are carried from Montreal to Halifax, after they reach Moncton, they are driven out watered and fed, and it is only a very few hours when they get to Halifax. To impose on the shipper the expense of furnishing fresh bedding in such a case would be subjecting him to an unnecessary additional charge. I quite see the object my hon. friend lias in view, and it is one which, appeals to our humanity, but we should consider the circumstances. On most of our routes the cattle are not kept

very long in the car. Under no circumstances are they kept over thirty hours without being let out and watered and fed and given an opportunity to move around. Even if they had to lie down on the bare floor, that would not hurt them, and the railway companies have found from actual experience that to put in fresh bedding increases the liability to fire, which it is very important to avoid. I do not know what suggestion to offer my hon. friend as I have not reached any conclusion, but he may be able to make some suggestions.


Mr. BROCK.: Straw need not necessarily be employed, but some other less inflammable material, such as tan-bark or sawdust or sand. The main object of this Bill is to have the animals kept separate, so that the smaller animals may not be ill-treated by the larger ones. This Bill would not apply to nineteen-twentieths of our cars as not more than that proportion are used for carrying animals of various or assorted classes. The other day my attention was drawn in Toronto to the fact that some cattle shipped from Owen Sound had trampled under foot a number of small animals, such as sheep and in some cases hogs. A kind of stampede took place, the cattle rushed about, and the big animals crushed the smaller ones to death. It would be a very trifling matter for a railway company to put up some scantling divisions, strong enough to prevent the cattle from breaking through. If that were done, it would meet the object of this Bill. I am not speaking of cattle shipped over a short distance, say from Montreal to Moncton, but of those shipped a long way west of Winnipeg and which come through to the sea coast. In such cases, whenever a car is emptied, it should be cleaned out. The condition those cars get into In a day or two is something terrible, and the Bill provides that such ears should be cleaned out. The cost of supplying tan-bark, sawdust or other material not inflammable would be so infinitesimal that the companies or shippers would not object to paying it. The other day I passed a car with two dead cattle in it from the North-west. The car was not very far from Ottawa, and no doubt those animals had been trampled upon by heavier cattle, and the flooring of the cars was so slippery with slush that it was difficult for the cattle to keep their feet. The hon minister objects to railway companies being obliged to put up these heavy partitions in a great many cars, but they will be required in only a very few cai's from a very few points. People do not ship lambs and smaller cattle in large quantities from great distances. There is very seldom a whole car load of lambs. They are usually put in with other cattle and they should be partitioned off from the larger animals. The objection raised about cats, dogs, &e., does not apply to this Bill. We do not ask that cats and dogs Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
and canaries should be partitioned off from other animals, but when driven to town in a farmers wagon, they should be under some kind of supervision and not subjected to the extreme cruelty of being packed closely in a crate so that they can scarcely move. I have seen a package of game sent in such a state that no one who saw them would want them on his table. I am promoting this Bill at the instance of the Toronto Humane Society, which gets no public grants and no civic grants, and is supported entirely by the people of Toronto and Ontario. I am glad to see that this society is spreading in the province of Quebec. This society is doing good work without any pecuniary reward, and I submit that the government should endeavour to meet its views as much as possible. But, if they cannot let the Bill pass exactly as it is, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Railways might get such a Bill framed as they think in fairness they could ask the railways to submit to, and that would be acceptable to the House and the country. We are not demanding every particular in the Bill, but we should like a Bill framed by the Minister of Justice to meet the case as far as possible and to go as far as would be acceptable to the Minister of Railways.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems that part of this Bill is already provided for under the Criminal Code, in subsection 5 of section 514, which provides :
Where cattle are unladen from cars for the purpose of receiving food, water and rest, the railway company then having charge of the cars in which they have been transported shall, except during a period of frost, clear the floors of such cars, and litter the same properly with clean sawdust or sand before reloading them with live stock.
Thus, there is no provision in the Criminal Code for littering the floors of cars at first, but it is provided that this must be done when the cattle are taken out, before they are again put upon the car.


Mr. LENNOX.: I think there may be some difficulty in framing this Bill, but, at the same time, it is probably required, and, with the assistance of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Railways, I think we can put it in shape so as to be an improvement on the present law. With reference to the question of danger from fire, also the question of cost and matters of that kind, I think we should be able to get over the difficulties. It appears to me that there would be no great danger from fire in cattle cars, except that fire might be communicated from some external cause for these cars are not likely to be very inflammable. But. at all events, and as the Minister of Railways has said, the difficulty exists only for a short time, and would only exist with regard to certain materials, such as hay and straw. It is a very easy matter, if the railway companies find there is actual

danger of fire from this cause, to dampen the hay or straw before it is put in the cars, so as to overcome the danger. We cannot in any way improve the law without giving some apparent ground for an argument on the other side. But we must look to the preponderance of benefit, and it seems clear to me that the advantage would be in the enactment of such a law as this. As to the cost, I understand the minister to say that it would be unfair to the railways if this were required with regard to short distances. The necessity for littering or bedding the cars hardly exists in the case of short distances, and if you take this Bill in the spirit in which the promoter brings it before the committee, feeling at liberty to make alterations where it may be necessary, we can surely modify the Bill so as to provide that this shall! apply only where animals are to be carried for a long distance. As to the separation of animals, I think the promoter of the Bill has said all that need to be said, and I think he lias shown that this is a very necessary amendment for the safe carriage of animals. I do not think the lion. Minister of Railways followed carefully the wording of the subsection 5A of section 2 of the Bill. It provides that:
No smaller animal shall be confined or carried In the same car, van or vessel with any larger animals of different species, unless a suitable and substantial partition

-and so on. It does not apply to the difference in size of the animals ns such, but to a difference of size and species.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In the city of Montreal we see a great deal of the abuses which this Bill of my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) is intended to remove. We have a very large number of cattle arriving there, and I have myself seen instances of cruelty. I understand the difficulty which the Minister of Railways has referred to. But I would point out to the minister that the only change which this Bill makes in the law is that contained in subsection 5A, for, as my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) lias shown, the amendment to subsection 5 of section 514 is substantially what is contained in the existing law.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is not compulsory now.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it is.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Only where the cars are stopped to unload the cattle. The subsection provides :
Where cattle are unladen from cars for the purpose of receiving food, water and rest, the railway company then having charge of the cars in which they have been transported shall, except during a period of frost, clear the floors of such cars, and litter the same properly with clean sawdust or sand before reloading them with live stock.
There is nothing to say that the cars shall be littered prior to the time of their being
unloaded for the purpose of feeding, watering or resting the cattle.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think, that in that respect the change is, perhaps, a wise one. The necessity for the change here proposed of prohibiting the crowding of small animals with large animals of a different species is one of which I have seen examples. If it were possible to embody this provision in the law, I think it would be a very great advantage.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The trouble is that the cattlemen send mixed cars of cattle and hogs, or sometimes cattle and sheep, because it reduces the cost of transportation, a larger number being put in the car. I thought there was a provision in the law prohibiting this, but I do not see it. I think this is a provision which should be made. When the cars are crowded in this way it results in the death of many animals, and, even where the animals are not killed they are left in such a condition that, when they are slaughtered, their flesh is not in as good condition for eating as if the animals had been kept separate.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There are some sections of this Bill which concern exclusively the transportation companies, and ought to be dealt with by an amendment to the Railway Act. My difficulty commences with the first section, which purports to amend section 3 of the Criminal Code. The difficulty there is very serious, because we are asked to amend section 3 of the Criminal Code by adding thereto the paragraph (ff). We are met with this anomaly, that in subsection d of section 3 of the Code, the word * cattle ' is to be found, and is defined, and it includes a large number of animals that it is intended to describe by subsection (ff). So you would have two different descriptions of the same word in the same section of the Criminal Code. This form of amendment is quite inartistic, to say the least of it. Now we have to deal with the expression * animal.'
The expression animal includes any horse, mare, gelding, bull, ox, cow, heifer, steer, calf, mule, ass, sheep, lamb, goat, pig, hog, sow, dog! cat, and every other domestic animal, fowl, or bird, or wild animal, cow, or bird captured, tamed or domesticated.
Just fancy incorporating that clause in the Criminal Code and making the word ' cattle,' where it is found in the Code applicable to such a clause as that. Why, you might even fine a man if he carries a canary bird in a cage that is not properly littered. Section 514 of the Code is to be amended. The whole of that section has reference to cattle, so you see the real word defined is ' animal.' So you have to reconstruct the whole articles of the Criminal Code which have reference to this. One does at first sight see how the economy of the statute may be entirely upset by such a

definition as this. So with reference to section 3, for instance. My hon. friend provides that the right of entry provided for in section 515 of the Criminal Code may he exercised in or upon any car, van, truck, vehicle or cockpit. That would, by implication, legalize the keeping of a cockpit. 1 do not know if there are any gentlemen in this House interested in these things, hut if there are, they would he interested to know that, though section 513 makes it illegal to keep a cockpit, here the effect of this section would be to legalize entry into a cockpit. I think there are inconveniences, to say the least of it, in this Bill if it is alloived to go through.
I suggested the other day to my hon. friend that perhaps this Bill might be considered by the draughtsman of the department, who is in the habit of drawing amendments and suggesting amendments to the Criminal Code. My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Brock) has not met Mr. Fraser, who I asked to call on him, and he did call, but in all probability they did not come together on account of the absence of my hon. friend. I would suggest that with respect to the first and third clauses, he should allow me to send Mr. Fraser to him for the purpose of seeing whether they cannot agree upon some amendment that would carry out the laudable objects that he has in view. With respect to the second section, I am afraid I must leave him to the tender mercies of the Minister of Railways and Canals.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would point out with respect to section 2 that bedding of hay and straw is used in certain box cars in which stock is shipped on the railways now. But this would apply to what is known- as slat-cars. At the end of the journey there would probably be no stock in the car at all by reason of being set on fire from the sparks of the engine.


David Tisdale: I understand that my hon. friend in charge of the Bill is not wedded to this particular form, and I quite agree with the Minister of Justice that it would be almost impossible to pass the Bill in its present shape on account of difficulties in the present form of the Criminal Code. But I see no reason why it could not be changed, if it is considered advisable to make some changes. Especially do I think there ought to be a strong attempt to compel railway companies to carry animals of different species separately. We must also keep in view the question of the cost of transportation. The competition in the carriage of animals is very keen. Therefore the producer and the transportation company are the two classes most affected by this Bill. I think it is proper to compel the company to divide their car into compartments for the different species of animals, because it is too bad to see sheep and hogs and big cattle huddled together in the same car, Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
and there ought to be some way to prevent it at the least possible cost. It has been suggested that the animals should be specified by name that are to be thus carried, but, from what the Minister of Justice says, that would be difficult to work out. Then as to the right of search as set forth in the Bill, that also is a matter that would require consideration. It seems to me that the Department of Justice is bound to see that this Bill is properly constructed, and if there are difficulties in the Bill in its present form, the Department of Justice should devise some amendments to overcome those difficulties.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It will be necessary to drop the first clause altogether because you could not give any such interpretation to the word ' animal ' as has been proposed here. As to the second clause, if it is the sense of the committee that it would be a proper thing to require that all cars carrying cattle shall be bedded in this description with straw, hay, sawdust, sand, tan bark, shavings or such other dry material. I think the better plan would be to reinsert the word ' cattle ' in place of ' animals.' The word ' cattle ' is defined in the Bill and it would be only in reference to cattle that any such provision as this would apply. If you insert the word 'cattle ' for the word ' animals ' in both parts of this section that would include all such animals as require to be bedded. But, before adopting this Bill, I think we ought to hear what the people have to say who have had the largest experience in regard to the carriage of cattle. Whether we agree with them or not I think it is wise for us to know what their views are upon the subject and see how this legislation is going to affect the cattle shipping business. It would not be desirable under any circumstances to pass even that section as it now stands. Then, I would say in regard to the next subsection that ' cattle ' has been defined in the original Act to include sheep, goats and swine. No smaller cattle, such as sheep, goats or swine, shall be confined or carried in the same car unless such and such precautions are taken -that would cover the ground the hon. gentleman desires to see covered. I could not recommend the committee to adopt a clause such as this until we hear more on the subject and perhaps the hon. gentleman would consent to the committee rising and reporting progress.


William Rees Brock: I am quite well aware that the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) and the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) are very anxious to promote this Bill in such a way that it will be of some use and that it will have something good in it. There is no use in the Bill going through in such a way that it will not carry out the object of the society

I represent, and which has in view particularly to stop the practice of animals of various sizes and species being indiscriminately crowded into one car; that is driving in a drove of cattle first of all, and then driving in sheep and hogs and filling up every foot of space under these cattle. We want to put a stop to that. Another object is that where two species of animals are placed in the same car there shall be a partition between them. We had a case the other day, as some hon. gentleman are no doubt aware, where .three or four calves were placed in a car with a drove of iiogs. there being a very light partition between them. They arrived at the station but the smaller animals were dead. The calves had been eaten up by the hogs in the car. These hogs were afterwards used for human food and I want to avoid any abominable thing of that kind taking place. I do not think we should leave it to the experience of the cattle men.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not either, but I would like to hear what they have to say.


William Rees Brock: Decidedly, but I think we should be protected against their opinions if they are adverse to the adoption of reasonable and humane methods in carrying on this traffic. I am quite well aware that the hon. Minister of Justice and the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals are as anxious as I am that a Bill that will deal with the cases I speak of should be passed and therefore I am willing to leave it to be amended in such a way as will make it satisfactory to the country generally. I move that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Campbell for the second reading of Bill (No. 20) to amend the Weights and Measures Act.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think we would require some explanation of this Bill. It affects a great many interests in the vicinity of the city of Montreal. I am not in a position to say to what extent it affects these interests, but I think it would be desirable that we should know why this new measure is introduced.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Mr. Speaker, I explained the objects of this Bill the other day when it was before the House, but the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) was not present, I think. The BUI is intended to apply more particularly to the province of Ontario. It has become the custom in the province of Ontario to sell milk by the can. In the city of Toronto
there are about 3,000 cans of milk per day sold. These are purchased from the farmers all around within twenty, thirty or forty miles of the city. Wrlien the plan which has been in vogue for a good many years was first adopted, cans were all made to hold eight gallons, but there is nothing on the statute-book to-day, I believe, to say what the can shall be, whether it shall be eight gallons, or ten gallons, or whatever it may be, but there was an unwritten law that eight gallons should constitute a can of milk. However, as time went on, the cans made by the dealers in the city have been constantly enlarged, first to eight and one-quarter gallons and eight and one-half gallons, and on until to-day there are none less than eight and one-half gallons, while a great many hold nine gallons of milk. The farmers, are obliged to fill these cans. After carrying the milk eight or ten miles it would not be good for it if the cdns were not full. They are obliged to fill the cans and as a consequence they lose half a gallon or more on every can of milk they sell. That amounts to a very large sum in the aggregate and the Bill simply provides that when a person sells a can of milk that means eight gallons and that a half a can is four gallons. By arrangement with the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier) and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) it was agreed that the second reading of this Bill should take place and that it should then be referred to a special committee. I am prepared to leave it to a special committee if the House sees fit to grant the second reading of the Bill. I am sure that this Bill is a step in the right direction. It affects nobody ; it is going to injure nobody.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: What good is it then !


Archibald Campbell: It prevents the farmer who sells his milk from being obliged to supply half a gallon for every can more than he gets paid for.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend (Ml-. Campbell) states that the object of this motion is to have the Bill referred to a special com-' mittee and for my part I have no objection. I do not think that the custom which the hon. gentleman says exists in Ontario obtains in Quebec and it was in the section about the application of this new measure to the province of Quebec that I saw some difficulty, but if it is going to be referrrd to a committee I have no objection.


Archibald Campbell: I have a letter-I have not it by me at the present moment-from Mr. Ness, President of the Milk Producers' Association in- Montreal, highly appro ring of this Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second I time.
Archibald Campbell: That Bill (No. 20) be referred to a special committee composed of Messrs. Cowan, Holmes, Henderson, Kemp, Maelaren (Perth), Wright and the mover ; with power to send for persons and papers and to report back to the House.


Mr. TAYLOR.: The complexion of that committee should certainly be changed, because these are all Ontario members, and this law will be applicable to the whole Dominion. There should be representatives from each of the provinces.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) could find a place on that committee for some representatives from the province of Quebec. Mr. Leonard represents a constituency which sends a great deal of milk to the city of Montreal, and he would, I believe, be in a position to render useful service to that committee.
f


Mr. KEMP.: I certainly think that cities like Montreal, Winnipeg, St. John and Halifax should be represented on that committee. I may mention that in Winnipeg the size of milk cans is different from what it is in Ontario.


Archibald Campbell: That the following names do compose the committee :-Mesrs. Cowan, Holmes, Henderson, Kemp, Maelaren (Perth), Wright, Demers (St. John and Iberville), Leonard, Monk, Bicker-dike and Campbell.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE moved second reading of Bill (No. 74) to amend the Railway Act.
The PRIME MINISTER.: Explain.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: This is the same Bill which I had the honour of introducing last session regarding the rights of railroad employees. I explained the Bill on the first reading. Its object is to place railroad employees in the same position as ordinary citizens in regard to accidents occurring on railroads. At the present time some railroads seem to contract themselves out of their common law liability for such accidents.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie, the Bill was referred to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines.
Archibald Campbell: 



INSOLVENCY ACT.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Monk : That Bill (No. 53) respecting Insolvency be now read a second time.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not in his seat, as he would be prepared to discuss this Bill. 1 may state that the government do not feel disposed to accept the Bill at the present time. It requires some consideration, and the matter is now undergoing the consideration of the Department of Justice. I will not say that the government will be prepared next session to introduce legislation on this subject; but since the matter has been brought to the attention of the House, most of the provinces have amended their laws with regard to insolvent estates, and I understand that these are now pretty satisfactory except in one or two provinces. It is to be hoped that the provinces themselves will attend to this kind of legislation, and adopt laws of such a character as to be acceptable. In regard to the hon gentleman's Bill, I understand from the Minister of Justice that the principle of it is perhaps acceptable, though the government are not prepared to accept all of its provisions. Under these circumstances, if my hon. friend persists in his motion, I must ask the House to reject it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Speaker, I was induced to bring this measure to the notice of the House because of the general desire which exists through the country, particularly among the commercial classes, that we should have uniform legislation on the subject of insolvency throughout the whole Dominion of Canada. I know for a fact that such is the desire of all the commercial bodies in the Dominion.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I must call the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that having already spoken on the question, lie has not the right to speak again.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I thought I had the right to sum up the discussion on my motion.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: No. When a member moves an order of the day, he has the right to speak only once. So, when a Bill stands for a second reading, the member who moves the Bill has a right to speak once when he makes the motion, but he has no right to reply.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, and with the indulgence of the House, I may perhaps be allowed to mention that I have received from the Secretary of the Montreal Board of Trade a letter in which he urges strongly that this Bill should receive the immediate attention

of the House. I have also received a letter from the secretary of the Chambre de Commerce, conveying the same information; and I may perhaps read to the House a resolution which was adopted on the first of April, in respect to this law. This is the resolution :
The Chamber of Commerce of the District of Montreal.
Report of the Committee on Legislation, adopted at the meeting of April 1, 1903, Insolvency Act.
The progress of Canada, the expansion of its trade and industries, its treaties with foreign nations, the influx within its borders, of immigrants and foreign capital, all the conditions of a rapidly developing country, make it necessary that some efficient means of protection be provided forthwith in behalf of those (whatever their origin), who by engrossing its trade, contribute in such a large measure to the wealth and greatness of its people.
Such a measure of protection as will give a new impetus to commerce by restoring confidence among dealers, shielding worthy though unsuccessful merchants and setting right business transactions, can be secured only be means of an Act applicable to the whole country and making uniform the system of distribution of the assets of the parties who failed.
While this Chamber recognizes that special needs, worthy no doubt of consideration, may have heretofore prevented the various governments anxious to enact some such law, from taking any such action, nevertheless, reasons of a superior order make it more imperative than ever that trade should not be subjected to unnecessary risks, and that the good name of the country should be kept above suspicion.
Therefore, confiding in the wisdom of our rulers and of the members of parliament, this Chamber, having on all occasions urged the adoption of a new Insolvency Act, and having last year given its approval to the Fortin Bill, hopes that, all difficulties having now been removed. the said Bill will be allowed to become law in the course of this session, after due consideration has been given to certain suggestions submitted by this Chamber and various public bodies.
The whole respectfully submitted.
(Sgd.) H. A. A. BRAULT, Chairman, Committee on Legislation. (True Copy.)
The Secretary,
(Sgd.) JOS. HAYNES.
There is also a report of some length from the same committee concerning the passing of this Bill. Under the circumstances, I do not think I would he justified in abandoning the Bill at this stage.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not intend to say anything on this Bill, and would not have done so but for the fact that the right hon. the premier has Intimated his disposition not to allow it to go any further at the present time. It has been my opinion for a good many years that an insolvent law for Canada was very much needed, and that fact has been impressed on the attention of parliament from various sources times almost without number, whenever an insolvent law was proposed. Letters have been sent to members of this House urging that some kind of insolvent law be adopted. But of late years the commercial element of the country seems to have despaired of the prospect of parliament passing an insolvent law ; and for that reason perhaps more than any other, there has not been of late so much interest taken in the subject. The premier says that each province has its own law for the distribution of estates, which seems to give fair satisfaction. It may give fair satisfaction so far as the creditor is concerned ; but the unfortunate insolvent is left out of the question entirely, and no matter how honest or how unfortunate he may have been, he is debarred from ever starting business again.
I have known of many instances of intelligent and well-meaning business men who failed in business through influences and circumstances over which they had little or no control. They were valuable citizens and would have been valuable additions to the commercial class provided they could have started again, but owing to the fact that there was no insolvent law and they could get no relief to enable them to start again, they had to choose between going into service and eking out whatever kind of existence that might give, or leave the country and begin life again in a foreign land. The latter has been the usual course adopted. I know from personal knowledge of many worthy men who have thus left our country during the past ten or fifteen years, who otherwise would have remained in Canada and been to-day doing a profitable business in their own country. Surely we ought to provide some law for the relief of those people who have failed through no fault of their own. Surely the country ought to provide some means for enabling these people to provide for themselves and tbeir families without being compelled to try their fortunes in any other land. While tiie distribution of assets may be fair to-day to the creditors in Canada, it is altogether unfair to other creditors. Many of our merchants import largely from the old country, and over and over again I have rend letters, especially from the commercial element in England, complaining that we had no insolvency law and that there was therefore no protection to them when they sold goods to Canadians, because, in the event of failure, the Canadian creditors gobbled up the estate and there was practically nothing left for anybody else. This makes it difficult for merchants in the old country to do business at all in Canada. A good many years ago I was opposed to an insolvency law and spoke against it on several occasions, but the experience of time and observation has convinced me that I was wrong and that an insolvency law would be in the interests of Canada. True, many of the evils which developed under the old

law created a prejudice against an insolvency law, but surely we are equal to the task of eliminating these evils and providing a law that would not be open to the objections raised against the last one. X have not looked over the Bill now before us except in a very cursory manner, but it seems to have many valuable features not to be found in some of the Bills introduced some years ago. The government ought to take up this question themselves, but, as far as I am concerned, I am in favour of this Bill being proceeded with, and I am confident that we are equal to the task of making it such a measure, as will work in the interests of the commercial community as a whole and do justice both to Canadian and foreign creditors.


Hugh Guthrie: I am heartily in favour of the principle of this Bill, Mr. Speaker, but I agree with my right lion, friend the First Minister that a measure so important to the citizens in Canada in general should be referred to the Department of Justice before being submitted to the consideration of this House. In my opinion, an insolvency law is one of these things which we must provide in the very near future for the commercial classes of Canada. In the passage of such a law our national credit is, to a certain extent, involved. The only question which presents itself to my mind is this : Is the Bill broad enough in its application ? There was a Bill introduced some years ago by the late Sir John Abbott, which was broad in its application, but the application of which was not sufficiently clearly defined, and looking at clause three of the measure before us, I think that the same objection may be taken to it. If we are to have an insolvency law which is to be general in its application, clause three of this Bill should be more definite. In my opinion, farmers should be included with commercial traders. There are some other minor points in the Bill which will require very serious consideration, and therefore I think it will be well to refer it to the Department of Justice.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: there not being uniform legislation, and it being well known in Britain, the country with which we wish to do the largest measure of trade, that there is no uniform law and that the outside creditor, whether of Britain or of any other country, has to become acquainted with several different systems of legislation in order to know what remedy he has, is seriously hampering, and has hampered our commerce and our business relations in the past. As I said before, having regard to the fact that we are rapidly expanding, having regard to the fact that by the energy, and industry, and hope, and ambition of the people of Canada, we are likely, whether there comes a wave of depression or not, to reach out still further in the future, and this at a rapid rate, I think it is the bounden duty of every member of parliament to bring his experience and ids wisdom to bear upon this matter; and it being especially one of the subjects relegated to this House by the British North America Act, to exercise our functions in this regard, and not relegate to the provinces, to work at random and with uncertainty, a matter upon which we should work for the whole Dominion.
It has been said that there are some prejudice by farmers against an Insolvency Act. I do not know whether that is so or not, I have not found that it is so. I have already referred to the fact, that the farming community and the industrial classes generally who launch out into large enterprises, should have the benefit of the provisions of an Insolvency Act. I have not found any prejudice among farmers against the passage of such an Act. Representing a distinctly rural constituency, I am prepared to take the responsibility as such representative, and say that I will at all events take all the onus that can be cast upon me by advocating what I believe to be in the interest, not especially of the commercial classes, not especially in the interest of the rural classes, but in the broad general interest of the Dominion. Believing that to be the effect, I am prepared to give this measure my support, and to work to bring it into the best possible form in the general interests of the whole of Canada.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would ask the Prime Minister if the government would not take this Bill out of my hands completely and adopt it as a government measure, so that it might become law this session. I would be quite willing to give up the Bill.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, but I am not prepared at this moment to accept the gift proffered by my hon. friend. It is a matter that requires some consideration. The government is not prepared to say that it would be advisable to introduce such legislation. All I can say at this moment is that the question is engaging our consideration.
House divided on motion (Mr. Monk).


Haughton Lennox: Alcorn,	YEAS : Messieurs Henderson,
Avery,	Hughes (Victoria),
Barker,	Kemp,
Birkett.	Lancaster,
Blain.	La veil.
Boyd,	Lennox,
Brock,	McIntosh,
Broder,	Monk,
Bruce,	Morin,
Cargill,	Porter,
Casgrain,	Robinson (Elgin),
Clancy,	Roche (Marquette),
Clare,	Rosamond,
Clarke,	Sherritt,
Cochrane,	Smith (Wentworth),
Earle.	Sproule,
Fowler,	Taylor,
Gilmour,	Thomson (Grey),
Haekett.	Tolton.
Hale.	Vrooman,
Halliday,	Wilson.-42.
Angers,	NAYS : Messieurs . Lemieux,
Bazinet.	Logan,
Belcourt,	Loy,
Bernier.	Macdonald,
Bickerdilce,	Maekie.
Blair,	MacKinnon.
Bourassa,	MacLaren (Huntingdon)
Brown,	Macpherson,
Bruneau,	McCarthy,
Bureau,	McCreary,
Calvert,	McEwen.
Campbell,	McGugan,
Christie,	Marcil (Bagot),
Copp,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Davis,	Meigs,
Desiardins,	Monet,
Douglas,	Mulock (Sir William),
Emmerson,	Parmelee,
Erb,	Paterson,
Et.hier,	Prdfontaine,
Fitzpatrick,	Puttee,
Fortier,	Reid (Restigouche),
Geoffrion,	Riley,
Gibson,	Ross (Ontario),
Girard,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
Grant.	Russell.
Heyd,	Schell,
Holmes.	Scott,
Hughes (King's,	P.E.I.), Stewart.
Hyman,	Sutherland (Oxford).
Johnston (Cape Breton), Talbot.	
Lang,	Tolmle,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Tucker,	
Liaurier OVAssomption) Turgeon,	
Lavergne,	Wade.
Law.	Wallace,
LeBianc,	Wright.-74.
Ministerial.	PAIRS : Opposition.
Thompson Haldimand), Ingram,	
Cartwright	Tupper
(Sir Richard),	(Sir Charles Hibbert)
Johnston (Lambton), Simmons,	
Charlton,	Tisdale,
Morrison.	Oourley,
Guthrie,	Porter.
Farquharson,	Osier,
McLennan,	McGowan.
Beith,	Bennett.
Sifton,	MacLaren (Perth),
Mclsaac,	Kendry,

Oliver.	Maclean,
Cowan.	Calvin,
Gould.	Pringle,
Harty,	Culbert,
Mignault,	LSonard,
McCool,	Kidd,
Arehambault,	Richardson,
Logan,	Lefurgey,
Dyment.	McCormick;
McColl.	Ward,
Fraser,	Bell,
Sutherland (Essex),	Northrup,
Tobin.	Ball.
Costigan,	LaRivifere,
Fielding,	Haggart,
Stephens,	Johnston (Cardwell),
Kendall,	Kaulbach,
Borden (Sir F. W.),	Borden (Halifax),
Roche (Halifax),	Ganong,
Matheson,	Pope,
German.	Carscallen,
Tarte,	Wilmot,
Galliher,	Reid (Grenville),
Bugas,	Robinson (North'd),
Harwood,	Roddick,
Ross (Yukon),	Seagram,
Motion negatived.



FRUIT MARKS ACT, .1901, AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Smith (Wentworth), for the second reading of Bill (No. 86) to amend the Fruit Marks Act, 1901.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. Smith) if he would kindly not press his Bill this evening. The hon. minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) has just returned to the city to-day, and I will take the opportunity to see that this Bill is taken into consideration.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Stands.
Order allowed to stand.



INCORPORATED COMPANIES.

[Stage Direction]
Sir. ROBERT BICKERDIKE (Montreal, St. I.awrenee) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 94) respecting incorporated companies. He said : Sir. Speaker, this Bill is intended to stop, if possible, men running to this House and the other House to get charters for the purpose of selling them. I have stated in the Bill that charters shall be void if not taken advantage of in two years. Some hon. members have thought this too short a time. I have no objection to changing the time. There are one or two amendments that have come from the Montreal board of trade, and if the House will agree to them I will suggest that they be put into the Bill. One proposes to amend clause 1, by inserting after the word * commence ' or the words ' or causes to be commenced,' that is to say while a company may not operate tinder its charter it may sell its charter to some other company and this other company may operate under it.
Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).: Would that amendment cover the case of the Dominion Telegraph Company ? I may say that I have had a communication respecting the effect of this Bill if passed in its present shape on the Dominion Telegraph Company and Montreal Telegraph Company, whose lines have been for many years operated by the Great North-western Telegraph Company.


Robert Bickerdike: That will not affect them if they are going on under another name or under another company.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Their lines are being operated by another company.


Robert Bickerdike: Quite so.


Edward Frederick Clarke: You are perfectly clear on that point ?


Robert Bickerdike: If they are being operated the Bill does not affect them. We might pass the second reading and submit it to the Minister of Justice.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am somewhat embarrassed about giving my consent that this Bill should go to committee because I do not understand its provisions. If I understood the Bill I could give my reasons for objecting to it, but I really cannot understand what my hon. friend (Mr. Bickerdike) means by this Bill. In answer to the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke) the introducer said it would not affect the Dominion Telegraph Company. I have a letter from one of the officials connected with the Montreal Telegraph Company in which he says that the .Montreal Telegraph Company, leased, after many years' working, to the Great North-western Telegraph Company and now worked by it, would be wiped out if this Bill goes through. The Dominion Coal Company, leased to the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, and worked by the latter, would also be affected by this Bill. This letter is received from a gentleman in Montreal connected with the Montreal Telegraph Company, and if it be a fact, as he says, that that would be the result of his Bill, I cannot help objecting to it. I cannot understand what my hon. friend is driving at, what purpose lie has in view, what his object is in this legislation, and not knowing what the object of the Bill is, I am sorry that I cannot agree to the House going into committee upon it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think that this Bill will affect a great many other companies in addition to the Dominion Telegraph Company, and I think we should pause before passing such sweeping legislation as that. There are many companies in Quebec that still exist for some purpose, but which are not at present exercising their corporate powers. I think this legislation is very sweeping, the public has had no notice of it. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Bickerdike) had better drop the Bill this session.


Mr. N. A. BELCOURT (Ottawa).: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out, too, that it will be utterly impossible to adopt clause 1 which I gather from what the hon. member (Mr. Biekerdike) has said, contains the principal feature of the Bill. It says :
If any company incorporated by the parliament of Canada, or under an Act of that parliament, fails to commence active operations within two years after incorporation, or fails to use any of its corporate powers during two consecutive years, such unused powers, except so far as is necessary for winding up the company, shall be forfeited.
It is well known that many companies are incorporated with several powers to be exercised by them. A company might be incorporated and might comply with the terms of its incorporation if it put into operation one or more of its powers while some other power contained in the Bill might, for some good reason, not be put into operation for some time. The result would be that though certain powers were used the unused powers, the operation of which for some good reason might be deferred to a later date, would "be destroyed.
I do not see how we could possibly adopt the principle involved in section 1. It seems to me that that objection is an insuperable one.


Robert Bickerdike: As it is quite evident that the leaders on both sides of the House are opposed to my Bill I ask to be permitted to withdraw it.
Motion withdrawn.



CONCILIATION ACT, 1900.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed consideration of the proposed motion of Mr. Puttee, for the second reading of Bill (No. 95) to amend the Conciliation Act, 1900.
Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).: Mr. Speaker, when this Bill was before the House on a former occasion, I explained it pretty thoroughly, and I do not think it is necessary to go into it again at this stage.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: There are same provisions of this Bill that the government can accept and there are some that they cannot. I have no objection to the Bill going into committee with the understanding that the adoption of the second reading does not commit the House to the provisions of the Bill. The second paragraph purports to authorize the appointment of a board of arbitrators without the consent of the parties. That is contrary to the principles of the Conciliation Act. However desirable such a provision may be, I hardly think that the public are educated to that standard yet. and therefore it would be in advance of public opinion. It is true that principle is incorporated in the Bill before the House respecting railways in extreme cases, but we cannot consent to that principle in re-1 Mr. MONK.
gard to ordinary industrial troubles. Sections 3 and 6 of the Bill with certain modifications might be passed so far as the government is concerned. My hon. friend (Mr. Puttee) desires to have the Bill referred to the committee so that it may be dealt with in detail, there will be no objection.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the Bill.
On section 1,
The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The Conciliation Act provides that a board of conciliation may be appointed on the application of the employers or the employees interested. This section provides that the board may be appointed without the application of either party. That is a material difference. Under the amendment the board may be appointed without either party applying, whereas under the present law application must be made by one or other party to the dispute.


Andrew B. Ingram: I cannot see the effect of introducing this amendment to the present Act.


Arthur W. Puttee: Does the minister accept tills amendment ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have no objection to the amendment.


Arthur W. Puttee: My hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) will find there is a great difference between the amendment and the provision in the present Act. The amendment makes it the duty of the Labour Department to appoint a conciliator without application at all. Suppose the parties are now willing to conciliate, then when this officer is appointed he will be an investigator and will ascertain all the facts and report. It is very much the same principle that was put in the Railway Disputes Bill, and it will insure that there shall be an impartial investigation into any dispute even although *tlie parties are not willing at that time to ask for conciliation or Investigation. I believe that this amendment will have a great deal to do with putting the Act into force more frequently than formerly. I am afraid that in the future the number of strikes will increase, and some strengthening provision like this In the Conciliation Act is very desirable.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2,
The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That paragraph cannot be accepted. It proposes to appoint arbitrators without the consent of both parties. The first clause which was assented to, appoints a conciliator who would take evidence and make an award, but this second paragraph would force arbitration on unwilling parties, and I move that it be stricken out.
Clause struck out.

On section 3,


Tlie POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I move to amend this section by striking out the words ' arbitrator to take evidence under oath regarding the matter in dispute; also to strike out the figure ' 5 ' in the first line and substitute therefor the figure ' 7,' so as to make it amend section 7 of the Conciliation Act instead of section 5. It will amend section 7, which deals with conciliation and provides for the conciliators making their report and the publication of the report.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would it not be better to require a statement of that kind to be published in the 'Official Gazette' ? I have no doubt that it would also be published in the 'Labour Gazette'; but everybody does not take the ' Labour Gazette,' and I think the statement should be published in the general official publication of the country.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think the ' Labour Gazette ' would reach a good many more people than the ' Official Gazette.' Its circulation is considerable now, and it may be treated as the official gazette of the government in labour matters.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This is the first time we have made this kind of enactment.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, it is also referred to in the Bill which I have before the House respecting labour disputes on railways.


Arthur W. Puttee: It is also referred to in section ten of the original Act.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I scarcely see the importance of this amendment. What effect will it have ? Is it along the line of compulsory arbitration? It does not seem to me that it is. If we are going to legislate any further on these questions, I think we had better go to the bottom of the whole matter at once and deal with it in such a way that we can bring about a settlement of labour disputes. To my mind this is only trifling with the matter. It does not touch the kernel at all. It is proposed from the standpoint of some trades and labour council who simply keep this matter alive before the workingmen of the country with the pretense that they are doing something for the workingmen, while as a matter of fact accomplishing nothing. I think it is about time that we were doing something, and if labour disputes are to be brought to a termination within a reasonable time without sacrificing the interests of the working men, or the interests of the employers, I think the time has come when we should take into consideration legislation which will compel both parties to agree to any reasonable settlement that may be suggested by those who are constituted for the purpose of bringing about a settlement. That is my opinion on the whole matter. I do not think this legislation is going to amount to anything.


William Rees Brock: ' If this Bill were simply dealing with a local organization, 1 would be very well inclined to agree with it; but why should this country be so much concerned about protecting the interests of an international organization, which is not under the laws of this country, which does not recognize anything we do in this parliament except in so far as it will suit its own interests ? I contend that the labour organizations of this country should be manly enough to stand on their own feet and submit to the laws of Canada, and not be dictated to by organizations on the other side of the line. If they are not dictated to by these organizations, as some gentlemen in this House have said, then why, is this word ' international ' introduced in this Bill V Why should we allow ourselves to be dictated to by antagonistic organizations on the other side of the line ? I contend that this House should throw out any legislation of an international kind that comes before it. It is only an attempt to hold up the manufacturing and other industrial interests of this country. We have had the farmers of this country antagonised, and their freight held up at the dictation of international organizations. I contend that this country will not put up with this sort of thing, and therefore I urge the government to throw out anything that purports to legislate for any country but Canada. I notice that this Bill provides :
In no case shall a conciliator or arbitrator stipulate, nor shall it be stipulated in any agreement promoted or recommended by a conciliator, or arbitrator, that any employee shall relinquish his membership in any local, national or international trades union or labour association.


Peter Macdonald: That is not the section we are at.


William Rees Brock: This whole Act is moving in a certain direction, and it culminates by stipulating that anything we do here should have no effect.


Peter Macdonald: Will the hon. gentleman be kind enough to tell me what Bill he is reading ?


William Rees Brock: Bill ninety-five. If the chairman reads it over, he will find that my remarks are perfectly in order. I do not care which clause of this Bill you take, it is not one that should be considered by this House, because we are attempting to legislate beyond our powers for an international arrangement which we cannot control. If the chairman says I am out of order, and have no right to speak, I will resume my seat.


Peter Macdonald: I do not say the hon. gentleman is not in order, but the Bill I have does not appear to be the same as the one the hon. gentleman is reading.


William Rees Brock: That is the difficulty in connection with this whole matter. There

is an attempt to make people believe that we are passing Canadian legislation whereas we are legislating in connection with a foreign organization.


Arthur W. Puttee: The hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken. Surely he must know that this Bill can only affect Canadian unions and Canadian employers. There is no intention to go outside the jurisdiction of this parliament and we could not. It would he absurd to introduce a Bill to affect any international organization not under our control. This Bill is not intended to affect trade unions but to try and arbitrate disputes that will arise between Canadian employers and workmen. Whether the attempt be successful or not, it is worth our consideration, and we should approach the matter without prejudice or bias one way or the other. I agree with the hon. gentleman who has just spoken and deplore equally with him the fact that there is not more force in the Act. I believe that if my amendment were accepted, making arbitration possible on the application of one party, that would extend the principle as far as it can go without encroaching on compulsory arbitration. Although I am not opposed to compulsory arbitration, the majority of members here are. I am afraid that disputes will not be adjusted until we have some reasonable method of dealing with them by compulsory arbitration, and the section thrown out of the Bill, although it provided for arbitration on the request of one of the parties, did not make the award binding on either. It simply left it to the force of public opinion, on an investigation being made and an award declared by a disinterested party.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Suppose you had compulsory arbitration, how could you enforce it ? Would you put these people in jail ?


Arthur W. Puttee: I am afraid it would not be of any use our entering into a discussion on the features of compulsory arbitration at present. In New Zealand they are getting awards observed and enforced under compulsory arbitration. In the Australian commonwealth, they are doing the same thing. The only objection to it in Canada is that the people are not ready for it. But I protest against this introduction of the question of internationalism and foreign agitators and all the rest, being brought into the subject before us. The Bill and amendment are purely along the lines of conciliation, in order to do away as much as possible with disputes of a minor character that often grow into larger ones. I believe that a conciliation Act can smoothe out some of the troubles of a minor character, but so far it has not affected any of the larger evils.


Peter Macdonald: I would ask hon. gentlemen to confine themselves to the discussion of clause three. On clause four, Mr. BROCK.
we will come to what the hon. gentleman is now discussing.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has the government allowed section three to go ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is there to be done by section three which is not already provided for in the Conciliation Act ? Section three provides that a conciliator shall look into the facts and suggest a settlement. Is not that already in the Conciliation Act ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think it is, but there seems to exist a doubt in the mind of my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee), and 1 have no objection to remove it. Besides this provides that the basis of settlement shall be published in the ' Labour Gazette.' That is not to be found in the Conciliation Act.


Arthur W. Puttee: The word used in the amendment is ' arbitrator ' instead of ' conciliator.'


Edward Frederick Clarke: He is no longer a conciliator but an arbitrator.
On section 4,
4. The said Act is further amended by inserting the following section immediately after section 6 :-
6a. In no case shall a conciliator or arbitrator stipulate, nor shall it he stipulated in any agreement promoted or recommended by a conciliator or arbitrator, that any employee shall relinquish his membership in any local, national or international trades union or labour association ; nor shall an agreement subject any employee to a penalty on account of such membership.


Arthur W. Puttee: It has been suggested that this should be made an amendment to section eight Instead of section six, to which I have no objection. I would move that * six ' be struck out and ' eight ' be substituted.
Tlie intent of this amendment is to commend this principle of conciliation to the employees. At present the employees keep away as much as possible from conciliation or arbitration because there lias been rather a mischievous principle introduced into the awards of some arbitrators or conciliators, believing that they had power to take the by-laws or constitutions of an organization into their judgment and alter them as they saw fit. As a matter of fact, the policy is laid down by almost all associations that they will not put their constitution and bylaws to arbitration, and they are perfectly right. A clause of this kind will dff a good deal to commend the principle of this Bill to the parties interested.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Have the words ' local, national or international ' any force whatever ?


Arthur W. Puttee: No, it seems to me that the words ' any trade union,' would be sufficient.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It seems to me that the I clause would be just as strong if we left the words ' local, national or international ' out and made it read ' any trade union or local association.'


Arthur W. Puttee: I was about to suggest the same thing. These words might just as well be left out, if there is any objection to them.


William Rees Brock: As the labour representatives in this House are beginning to see the thing very much in the way I see it, I withdraw any objection I have to anything else, if they will withdraw the word ' international.' I therefore move that the words ' or international ' be struck out.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Why not leave it ' any trades union ' ?


William Rees Brock: I am in favour of trades unions in this country, subject to the laws of this country ; but this Bill would bring in international unions that are not subject to the laws of this country. Why need the word ' international ' be used ? Why do we send to Philadelphia, New York, Boston, or any other large American city for international interviewers, and organizers to come to this country ? We should do everything to make it thoroughly understood that the Canadian parliament is able and willing to legislate for this country and will insist upon its rights to do so. I do not care what bylaws and rules the local organizations may have, they have a perfect right to have them ; but when these local laws have to be referred to agitators from the other side of the line, that is something that we should fight against. These Canadian organizations, I am in favour of, and am anxious to support in every possible way, notwithstanding what may have been said. But I do not wish to support, nor do I think this country will support, agitations and organizations, the mainspring of which is on the other side of the line. Therefore, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Puttee) is willing that the word ' international ' be struck out, I am willing to let it pass.


Arthur W. Puttee: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) asks why organizations send across the line for men. I do not know why his organizations do so, but I know as a matter of fact they do. The Toronto Manufacturers' Association sent across the line to bring in American agitators from Dayton, Ohio, and the Metal Working Manufacturers' Association did the same thing. I do not pretend to know why these organizations did these things. I know why an ordinary trade union sends across the line, but I do not see why it is necessary to discuss this at the present time. I notice that when we have railway Bills before the House, these hon. gentlemen do not ask why the capital comes from other countries, or why the promoters are men who owe no allegi-103
ance to Canada ; and when a friendly society is to be incorporated they do not ask why it is that the headquarters of that society are in another land. They know perfectly well that we are dealing with our own subjects and that, even if the societies to which they belong are affiliated with outside organizations, that does not affect this provision, for it can control the citizens of Canada only. I am perfectly willing that all the words, ' local, national or international,' should be struck out.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is not necessary to strike out ' local ' or ' national, ' I take it that the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) has no objection to Canadians belonging to local organizations.


William Rees Brock: Certainly not.


Andrew B. Ingram: But the hon. gentleman does not want to be misrepresented on that point. I understand that the hon. gentleman is willing that all these organizations should enjoy all the rights they have in Canada, and does not desire to deprive them of any of those rights. If the section is amended as the hon. gentleman suggests, it will meet his views and will help to remove the ground for the contention of some hon. gentlemen that labour organizations are controlled by men on the other side of the line. Personally, I understand that many organizations in Canada are affiliated with the international associations, and that the strength they thus gain' is a benefit to the organization. I have no objection to the amendment the hon. gentleman suggests, seeing that it will meet what seems to me the paltry objection that he raised.


Mr. HOLMES.: I agree with the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) and the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) that, in so far as this phrase is concerned, it is a term that the House should guard against. But, if you strike out the words ' local, national, or international ' you make it, in effect the same as now. I think the word ' international ' should be struck out, and that would meet the object the House has in view. There is a feeling, undoubtedly, that a good many of the strikes carried on by the trades unions are due to the work of the agitators from the other side of the line. If that feeling could be removed it would strengthen the labour element with public opinion on this side of the line.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This is another clause, it seems to me, which my hon. friend (Mr. Puttee) might have left out. I do not think the arbitrator or conciliator-for it is only the conciliator we are dealing with here-ought to be told by legislation that he shuts out any class in any suggested arrangement, or prevents any employee from belonging to a trades union. I am not aware that any conciliator or any body else has made such a



suggestion. Why should we legislate in this sense ? What the conciliator is supposed to do is to suggest a basis of arrangement between the parties, and X think it unwise for my hon. friend to raise the question by this useless piece of legislation. I cannot bring myself to agree completely with my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock). There are a great many trades unions in the city of Montreal that find it useful-for what reason I cannot exactly say-to be affiliated with American organizations or organizations of other countries. X cannot say here without having examined the question more fully that they are in the wrong. With regard to international unions being an irritating cause of strikes, I am not prepared to admit that either. What strikes and labour difficulties we have had in the city of Montreal have not been suggested by agitators from the other side. That I say from my own knowledge. I am not absolutely acquainted with the by-laws of our trades unions ; but I think it is especially provided that, before having recourse to a strike, the matter must have been fully considered by the local trades union and decided by them without any outside interference whatever. After the strike has been decided upon, then, and then only, is the question of the wisdom of striking submitted to the central council wherever that may be ; the central council-international or whatever may be its character-intervenes, as I understand it, expressly for the purpose of preventing a strike. That is what I have found out, at any rate among the working men of Montreal. These men, very far from being urged to strike, find that the central council acts the part of a conciliator. And, if after all these efforts have failed and a strike takes place, then the man whom my hon. friend from Centre Toronto regards as an agitator comes in. But, as I understand it, he is rather a man having experience in labour matters, who comes independent of all parties for the purpose of smoothing over the difficulty if possible. Under these circumstances, and upon general principles, if a workman belonging to a labour union finds it useful and for the benefit of his own association to have that association linked with one with similar aims in another country, having great power and resources, I do not see why he should not have that power. I know that in Montreal these trades unions feel that they gain power, that they can work better if they are united with similar trade unions in other countries. As some hon. gentleman has remarked, we admit foreign capital, we allow foreign capital to make combinations with our own capital. I cannot, for my part, see why we should not allow labourers to coalesce, provided they do it properly, and not In violation of any law. I really think this section is useless. My hon. friend must see that it has brought up a discussion on a matter of very Mr. MONK.
grave import which is not, strictly speaking, in question here, and he has offered to withdraw the word ' international.' But, for my part, I would like to consider the matter further before saying that I disapprove of such combinations.


John Charlton: The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has given us a piece of refreshing coolness in the remarks he has just made to the House with regard to disinterested and philanthropic efforts of the labour agitators on the other side, whose sole and only object in coming over here is to avert strikes and settle labour disputes amicably. Perhaps the hon. gentleman believes that is the case; if he does, I certainly do not. I believe that the operations of these emissaries, in nine cases out of ten, are in the line of promoting and fomenting difficulties. I agree with the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Brock) in his demand that this word ' international ' should be expunged from this section. I know myself of cases where agitators, labour emissaries from the United States, have come in here and have promoted strikes, have been the cause of strikes.


An hon. MEMBER.: Where ?


John Charlton: At Smith's Falls, for instance. The operation of a large manufacturer there was suspended and the men went out on strike. A labour union was formed, the men were coerced into joining that union, were compelled to do so. Two-thirds of the men who joined that union did so reluctantly and against their wishes. But the terrorism, and the influences that these men know so well how to use, were brought into play there, and the result was that the men went out on strike and the business of that concern was suspended. Three-fourths of their orders fortunately were filled, and the firm said : Very well, gentlemen, if you do not wish to work, if you decide to dictate to us how we shall carry on our business, we will simply suspend operations. They did suspend operations, and after the strike had continued a month the men came back to work, and three-fourths of the men that came back, I am told, were opposed to having gone out on a strike. It seems to me we are largely engaged here in performing the operation of a tail to the kite of the labour unions, we are playing second fiddle to John Mitchell in the legislation which we are adopting in this House. We are dealing with this labour question in the interest of the unions ; we do not take into consideration the interests of the great mass of labourers who do not desire to join the unions, the men who want to sell their labour, who want to be at liberty to make a bargain for their labour without being told by officers of the labour union whether they shall have the privileges of a citizen in making such a contract or not. The weapon of the greater portion

of the strikes in the United States has been the terrorism that has been exercised by the trade unions in preventing men from working who desired to work, who were satisfied to work, who were satisfied with the wages that they were receiving, and who desired to go on earning those wages. But they have been prevented from doing so, have been compelled to cease labour at the dictation of a tyrannical organization, an organization which, if it has the power, will exercise a tyranny greater than has ever been exercised in this country.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is the hon. gentleman opposed to trades unions ?


John Charlton: I am not opposed to trades unions when they are operated within legitimate and proper limits, but I am opposed to trades unions that usurp to themselves authority to command the entire labour interests of the country, and to coerce and compel men in every direction to join the unions whether they wish to do so or not, and who, if they do not -wish to join the unions, will resort to violence, to murder and to arson, in order to carry out their purposes. Now, Sir, I propose to offer an amendment to this subsection 6, or subsection 8, as it will be. The section reads now as follows
In no case shall a conciliator or arbitrator stipulate, nor shall it be stipulated in any agreement promoted or recommended by a con-cilator or arbitrator, that any employee shall relinquish his membership in any local, national or international trades union or labour association ; nor shall an agreement subject any employee to a penalty on account of such membership.
I propose to add these words :
Or discriminate against persons who are not members of trades unions or labour associations.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: I venture to think that if the Minister of Labour had drawn a clause it would not be worded as this clause 6a. I would have thought it was unnecessary for any member of this House to express himself with regard to trades unions in discussing a measure such as this, which is a simple piece of legislation. But as others have so expressed themselves, in order that by my silence I may not be misunderstood, I desire to say that I sympathize as much as any member in this House with the desire of the labouring classes to promote their interests by forming themselves into labour associations. The question before this House is whether this particular clause, 6a, is, under the circumstances, a reasonable and proper clause, and if adopted by this House, will it be a reasonable piece of legislation. Now, when we consider that the Act which is being amended is not an arbitration Act at all, but a conciliation Act, when we find that the conciliator has no power to bind either the employer or the employee, I venture to say that this is, I was going to say, a monstrous thing.
103i


Arthur W. Puttee: In what way ?


William Barton Northrup: The arbitrator has no power to bind the party. You may call him the conciliator or an arbitrator, but it comes down to the same result, that he has no power to bind the parties. Now, if an arbitrator had power to bind the employer or the employee, and if there were machinery to enforce his decision, then I could understand the propriety of such a clause as this. But when the conciliator or arbitrator has no power to bind the parties, I venture to say that it is a most extraordinary piece of legislation to forbid him even to make a suggestion.


Andrew B. Ingram: Supposing both parties agreed to abide by his proposition ?


William Barton Northrup: If they left the matter to the arbitrator to decide for them, he could not put this particular clause in, even if it were a proper clause. I am not saying that the case might not arise when it would be proper for the conciliator to insert any such clause as this, but it is conceivable.


Andrew B. Ingram: Supposing in the longshoremen's strike in Montreal an agreement was entered into by a third party that the workmen should drop their membership in a labour organization, would that agreement be affected by this clause ?


William Barton Northrup: Practically it would make a difference, for this reason, if this clause were passed the conciliator or arbitrator would not be allowed to put in such a clause as is forbidden here, but if this clause does not pass, and if the conciliator or arbitrator did insert such a clause without having any machinery to enforce it, nobody would be bound by it. I would like to ask my hon. friend in turn if this is a reasonable clause, and I want to go further ; if it is proper to say that no conciliator or arbitrator shall say that no employee shall relinquish his membership in any association. I would go further and say that no employer should relinquish his membership in any association. If it is fair for one side, why not make it reciprocal, and apply it to the other side as well ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not suppose they would have any objection to that.


William Barton Northrup: I do not say that they would. But I think that if it is a good thing for one it should be good for all. I am not advocating that principle; I am rather advocating another principle because it seems to me we are doing a wholly unnecessary act in putting a clause on the statute-book which will not result in any good. The clause seems to assume that under no possible circumstances, no matter what the provocation might be, could the friends of the union go so far astray that a conciliator might be justified in saying that a man should leave the union. I do not know that

they will go so far astray that an honest impartial conciliator would adopt this principle, but if they have gone so far astray it seems to me rather hard that in any conciliation effort he should he deprived of making that suggestion. Therefore, I think this should be reciprocal; if it is applied to one it should be applied to the other, and secondly, because it would be faulty legislation I would be inclined to oppose the clause.


Andrew B. Ingram: Every one who knows anything about labour disputes knows perfectly well that there is no instance he could name where any labour organizations have taken objection to a manufacturer simply because he belongs to the Manufacturers' Association. We all know that perfectly well, and we who have watched these disputes also know that there never has been a labour dispute between organized labour and organized capital in which the question of membership in the labour organization was not the real point of the contention as between the two parties. It is true that the wage difficulty arises very frequently, but oftener the difficulty is by reason of men belonging to labour organizations. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) finds fault with these tyrannical organizations which commit murder and violence. There is not a man who belongs to a labour organization in Canada that I know of who wants to commit murder or exercise tyranny or anything of that kind. These men simply want to associate themselves together for mutual benefit and protection. I hold that any man who asks that privilege is entitled to it.


John Charlton: My remark in regard to violence and intimidation on the part of members connected with labour organizations referred to the operations of labour unions in the United States, and not to Canadian organizations at all, and it was made in connection with this matter of international unions.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then what was the object in bringing that question into this discussion ?


John Charlton: I referred to international affiliations.


Andrew B. Ingram: We know perfectly well that in Chicago and other cities in the United States they have gone altogether too far. They have committed tyranny, and they have committed murder in many cases. I do not know a single instance in Canada where they uphold conduct of that kind. I am quite sure they do not.
Mr.. BROCK. Why was it necessary for the authorities in Montreal to call out the troops ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The troops were called out because we had not sufficient police in Montreal.


William Barton Northrup: 


William Rees Brock: What for ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There was no conflict; they were literally called out in place of the police.


William Rees Brock: Called out because a conflict was threatened.


Andrew B. Ingram: During all the discussion that took place in this House about longshoremen's strike not a single instance of violence was brought to the notice of the House.


William Rees Brock: Why, was not the calling out of the troops a most extraordinary evidence of fear on the part of the authorities in Montreal that violence was going to be committed ? Otherwise they were absolutely wrong in calling out the troops.


Andrew B. Ingram: I might refer to an instance in the hon. gentleman's own city of Toronto. No one will charge the students of the different colleges with being tyrannical or wishing to commit murder or violence ; yet the troops were called out to take charge of these young men.


William Rees Brock: Certainly.


Andrew B. Ingram: I take it that the circumstances in Montreal and in Toronto were on the same lines. It was not so much the fault of the students as a certain class of people who take advantage of a procession of that kind in order to create violence.


William Rees Brock: Show me your company and I will tell you what you are.


Andrew B. Ingram: If I were to judge all the students by that I am afraid I would have to say that they were in bad company that night. I think if the disturbers who usually accompany these processions had not been there, there would not have been so much done about that Toronto affair as really was done. In respect to this measure I do not see why a man has not the right to belong to a labour organization if he sees fit. Most of these disputes hinge largely on the question of men belonging to a labour organization or retaining membership in an organization. I cannot see why they should be deprived of that privilege. I am not one of those who uphold labour organizations in depriving other men of the privileges of obtaining employment because they are not members of the organization. Possibly some go a little farther than they should. I think that they have a right to be organized and that they are entitled to exercise all the privileges of their organizations. They are entitled to the right to organize just as much as manufacturers are, as legal gentlemen are, as medical gentlemen are, or as any other bodies of men are.


Arthur W. Puttee: I think it is to be regretted that in the discussion of this Bill hon. gentlemen should have thought it necessary to

refer to some of the things that they have referred to; for instance, to injurious labour organizations, red-headed agitators and so on-bogies which have been deliberately planted in the public mind. I think it would have been a great deal better to have discussed this Bill which is intended to be a conciliation Bill. The question that was brought up by the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) is a very material point in reference in this subject, it is that after all the one thing that is the pith and heart of the labour dispute is the question that is called recognition. Half the troubles that are on to-day might be settled tomorrow if it were not for the question of recognition. I have often said that I believed in compulsory arbitration. Compulsory arbitration recognizes that a dispute must be between two parties and not between an organization of capital and any individual employees. It will only deal with organizations on both sides. Then, it is possible for you to get men into a frame of mind to see that there are two strong sides which are brought together by the conciliation process. Compulsory arbitration brings labour disputes up to date. It is no good discussing the labour question as if labour organizations will be put to one side. They will not be put to one side. They are growing stronger just as organizations of capital are growing stronger, and any movement that is going to affect arbitration or conciliation has got to recognize that fact. After all, this clause it not so hurriedly or awkwardly drawn as some suppose. It is not a clause that has been got together especially for this Act. It is one that is beginning to appear in the Conciliation Acts of different countries. There is a good principle in it, and I will explain why. When an award is made to settle a dispute, there is this one thing that makes that award of no effect whatever, and that is anything that prevents the affiliation of employees with the union that has been in the dispute. Why, because if they have not got that organization at their back under which they struck, their settlement is no good. The employer accepts the settlement and immediately disregards it, because there is no other side to enforce the settlement. I say that in any proposition that is made by disinterested parties it is wise that they should leave this question where they found it; leave it to be settled between the men themselves, but do not take the dispute away from the organization, and do not fine any man for his affiliation with a union. If you do that, you will immediately destroy all confidence in conciliation. There is not much confidence in conciliation in this country at the present time, and it is because of the actual experience that this has been attempted and some times has been successfully done in perfectly well meant conciliations. In bringing in a disinterested party, you bring in a person who does not understand the organization of labour or the organization of capital, and it appears quite reasonable to such a one that these parties should work together as individuals, as he has the notion they used to do in the past. It is no use attempting to conciliate on the basis of individuals working with an employer-the whole thing now is two strong parties, necessarily antagonists for the time being, perhaps antagonistic all through ; the interest of the country is to bring them together. That is the idea of this Conciliation Act. It seems to me regrettable that in discussing this matter we should in any way appeal to passion or to ideas that are at all events out of date.


Edward Frederick Clarke: As the Minister of Labour has taken this Bill under his fatherly consideration, we have the right to ask him what is his opinion of the amendment suggested by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) ? The minister's opinion would no doubt have a beneficial, effect in enabling us to reach a wise decision as to whether we should adopt this amendment or not. I am glad we have cleared the atmosphere a good deal by the discussion that has taken place this evening. My hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) has put himself right. The attempt had been made to show that he is opposed to the organization of Canadian workmen into unions. He has told us that he is not opposed to that. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) was charged here with saying that he had referred to labour unions in this country as containing men who would commit murder.


John Charlton: I do not wish to be misrepresented


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am trying to put the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) right as well as my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock). I say that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) was charged here with saying that Canadian unions contained men, some of whom were prepared to commit murder. The hon. gentleman has repudiated that, and he says he refers to American unions. The only difference of opinion between the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Brock) and some other gentlemen who are in favour of labour organizations is as to what is meant by an international union. The Canadian labour unions are affiliated with these international bodies, because in union there is strength. The Canadian unions do not affiliate for any improper purpose. They are bound to support each other, but they are not united to injure any one. That is the principle on which they amalgamate. They do not lose any of their rights by amalgamating with labour organizations on the other side of the line; they rather strengthen the union organization. I am not satisfied yet, Mr. Chairman, that it has been proven that any person has come from the American side for the purpose of organizing our men into unions so as to

compel them to strike to the detriment of their own interests. I am open to argument, and I invite and challenge any hon. member on either side of this committee to-night to make good the allegation that men have come here to organize Canadians into unions and to compel them to strike. X say that statement cannot be made good, and It is not fair that such a statement should be made and that hon. members who do not know anything about union men, should be misled and deceived by such a statement. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Puttee) strikes out the words ' local, national or international,' I cannot see what objection can be raised to that amendment. It seems to cover the whole case. We are only legislating here, after all, for our own unions; we cannot legislate for unions on the other side, except to punish them if they come over here to commit a crime.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: In answer to my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), I do not think it should be the part of any board of conciliators or arbitrators to interfere with the freedom of any citizen to do whatever it is lawful for him to do, whether he choses to belong to a union or not to belong to a union.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think that to do otherwise would be an act of tyranny. You might as well stipulate that a man must not belong to a particular church or to a particular political party. I think that it would be entirely improper for us to interfere with the freedom of our citizens, and therefore I quite approve of a man's rights being preserved, and if necessary that we should do so by legislation. I may say that but for this Bill I would not have thought that any conciliator would have attempted in a proposed basis of settlement, to deprive a party to a labour dispute of his right either to belong or not to belong to a union as he sees fit. In taking that general view, I believe that it is just as proper that we should protect * nonunion ' as ' union ' labour.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Therefore, I would have no objection to the amendment of my hon. friend from North Norfolk, which is that we should not discriminate against non-union labour. The same principle would apply, I suppose.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would it not be well for the minister to prepare an amendment that would meet that case ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. member (Mr. Clarke) has suggested to strike out these qualifying words.


Arthur W. Puttee: I agree to accept the amendment of the hon. member for North Norfolk. His amendment is a great deal more reasonable than his speech.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Arthur W. Puttee: I would like to persuade him (Mr. Charlton) if I can, that there are two reasonable men in the House, if he considers he is one. I move to strike out the words : ' Local, international, or national.'


William Rees Brock: The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) spoke to us of not objecting to foreign capital coming into our country. I think foreign capital means foreign cash. What does international labour mean ? It can do a certain amount of harm, but is it anything that can be attacked ? Foreign capital coming to this country is under Canadian laws, and If it does damage to any individual in this country there is a means of getting justice, and collecting damages. But organized labour such as has been threatened here; what does it bring ? It brings with it of necessity the calling out of the troops of this country to protect, not foreign capital, but Canadian capital from damage and from loss. We have seen in the last few days in the public press where 4,000 labourers-I do not say they are members of labour unions, but it shows you the company that labour unions bring in its train in this country; it shows that all the scruff of this country come out to assist them and to protect them to derail cars, to destroy property, to stone people, who are engaged in their lawful calling. I do not mean to say that this is done by organized labour, but this is the affiliation; this is the company they keep; this is the kind of sympathy they bring out; not the sympathy of people whose opinions are worth having, but the very worst elements of the whole country are brought out to sympathize with and to back up these strikes brought about by organized labour.
Then they defy us to bring forward evidences of these men being invited to come to this country. If this House will give me a committee, I shall have no difficulty in proving not only that they have come here, but that they have been asked to come here. Nobody, under these circumstances, can invest capital in this country with any degree of safety, because they know that they are liable to be held up by what is called organized labour. The labour organizations of this country are not in favour of strikes. Give them, a chance to vote by ballot, and they will not vote for strikes. But men do not want to be called scabs on the streets ; they do not want their children coming from school to be hooted at; they do not want their wives to be insulted on the streets. But ten men in a hundred can bring about a strike, and there is no means of getting at them. These people can shoot from behind a hedge, and then run away, and there is no way of reaching them. This is a kind of thing which men who have respect for themselves despise. If the matter were left to a vote by ballot, I know the way that vote would go. I have been in

Toronto in the last few days, and I know the feeling among the labour men there, and they are not in favour of strikes. Only 10 per cent of the workers in Toronto are labour union men. I do not see why this country should be terrorized by them. I am prepared to meet the labouring people anywhere, and to convince any honest, reasonable man that there are two sides to this question. Labour has no right to terrorize over capital. I am prepared to protect organized labour, organized under Canadian law, and responsible for any harm it does to capital, and I am prepared to make capital responsible for any harm it does to labour.
I wish to place myself right on this matter. My battle is with international organizations. If we stamp them out in this country we can deal with our own people, who, I believe, are quite reasonable. I agree with the remarks of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). You need only pick up the papers to see how true his statement is, that these people do not stop even at murder. No less than twelve people were murdered yesterday, not by organized labour, but by the scruff of the country which they have in their train.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to say a word on this question ; but after having listened to the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock), I think it is due to myself and due to those whom I represent to say that my views on this labour problem are diametrically the opposite of his. That hon. gentleman has referred to those men who have organized as a labour party as men who will shoot at you from behind a hedge. I deny it ; it is not true ; and if the hon. member can give an instance of that, it is probable we may be in a position


William Rees Brock: The hon. gentleman must be intentionally obtuse


Peter Macdonald: Order.


William Rees Brock: I suggested the possibility of a labour party being such as would do that kind of thing. I did not accuse any labour man of doing it.


Hugh Guthrie: Then 1 say that unless the hon. member for Centre Toronto produces some facts upon which this House can form an opinion, he has no right to make that wholesale statement.


William Rees Brock: I have made it, and I stick to it.


Hugh Guthrie: I know the hon. member has made it, and that is the objection I take to it-that statements of that kind are made absolutely without foundation. Now, we know that the hon. member is the head of many industrial concerns in this country, including several large manufacturing concerns. He has had strikes ; he has had labour difficulties ; but will the hon. member rise in his place and say that as a result
of a single strike or a single labour difficulty which he has experienced, there has been one single act of violence or one single act of unjust treatment ? I say he cannot. The hon. gentleman contends that men have no right to organize under an international union. I submit that they have that right. They have a right to organize just as they see fit, whether the union be national or international. The difficulty in organizing a national union to-day is that workmen can be imported from the United States to take the place of men who think they have been wronged and have gone on strike ; and the force of an international union is that men cannot be imported in that way, because they will not come when they are invited. I say that so far the unions in Canada have acted within the law, and have acted in a most reasonable way. Never yet, so far as I know, has there been an unreasonable or criminal act committed by a single union man who has been on strike. I believe that the principle of this Bill should be adopted by this House. Conciliation is what we all aim at. Conciliation is the means that will bring about the best results both to labour and capital ; and speeches like that delivered to-night by the hon. member for Centre Toronto only serve to augment any difficulty which may exist between labour and capital. I believe Sir, that the course adopted by the Minister of Labour is the best means for bringing labour and capital together in Canada ; and if the hon. minister will continue to pursue the course he has undertaken, he will do more to bring about a better understanding between labour and capital than any arbitrary measure that this House can adopt, while the speech of the hon. member for Centre Toronto only augments the furore.


William Rees Brock: Before the hon. gentleman sits down, will he kindly name any strike that has occurred in any company with which I have been connected ?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, I will mention the strike which occurred two weeks ago in the Hespeler Woollen Mills, of which the hon. gentleman is president, and which employees 500 hands.


William Rees Brock: How long did it last ?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know.


William Rees Brock: You should know. It was settled inside of twelve hours. They did not lose a day's pay. There was no international union connected with it. We dealt with the men directly.


Hugh Guthrie: They may not have lost a day's pay, and I congratulate the hon. gentleman on that fact. If the demands of men were considered in that spirit, and their reasonable demands granted, there would be far fewer strikes. I say the principle of the Bill is right, and it ought to be adopted. The principle of this Bill was adopted when

this government came into power, and when the Minister of Labour took control of labour troubles in this country. While the name of Sir William Mu-lock may go down to posterity, it will not only go down as the Postmaster General, but it will also go down as Minister of Labour.


Peter Macdonald: Shall section 4, as amended by striking out the words ' local, national or international,' be adopted?


Mr. LOGAN.: I wish to call the attention of the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) to the fact that if this amendment should carry, it implies the recognition of not only local, national or international unions, but of unions which may not even be international. The amendment includes not only local, national and international, but even foreign labour organizations. I am in favour of the amendment, but it does not meet the point raised by the hon. member for Centre Toronto. I do not believe myself that a man should be required to relinquish his membership in any organization. We have discussed this matter tonight widely and brought a good deal into the discussion not to be found within the confines of the Bill, but, as my hon. friend from West Toronto lias said, it is as well probably to clear the air. In my opinion it would be better if the labour organizations of this country were purely Canadian. I think that we should endeavour to make everything in this country more Canadian ; and when we have foreign presidents and officers of our labour organizations, we are not encouraging that sentiment. But while it would no doubt be better to have Canadian officers for Canadian unions, the very worst way to endeavour to bring that about would be to try to coerce the labouring men into adopting that opinion. The very worst way to bring about a sentiment of that kind is to talk of labour organizations as cowardly organizations and unmanly. So long as we find hon. members holding out the red rag to the bull, so to speak, we are not going to reach the end desired of making these organizations thoroughly Canadian, officered by Canadian men. The other evening, in speaking on this Bill, I said that I thought it would be well to have an inquiry into the labour question of this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. While the questions of the tariff, public works and railway transportation are great questions, that which is going to be the most important within the next ten years is the question of labour and capital. Every morning we read in the press of new labour difficulties, of new strikes, declared in various parts of Canada, and if the wave of prosperity should recede at any time, these labour troubles will be accentuated. No doubt the question often occurs to the capitalist, not in this country alone, but in every country to-day. whether he should invest his money in manufacturing enterprises for fear that the


Hugh Guthrie: demands of labour will destroy the fruits of his industry, and we should seriously consider whether there is not some way of arranging matters between labour and capital on a more satisfactory basis. Sly hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock), in referring to labour organizations, said that he was willing that men should vote by ballot. Well, there is not a labouring organization in Canada in which the vote is not taken by ballot when a strike is proposed, and before foreigners are called in. We have no right to refer to the leaders of our labouring men as agitators. If our men in Canada are willing to serve under the leadership of Americans in their councils and unions, it is not in good taste to refer to these leaders whom they have chosen as agitators. Let me repeat that, even with a foreign president and officers at the head of these labour organizations, no strike can be declared in the Dominion without a secret ballot first being taken. Not until the men have declared by secret ballot in favour of a strike can a strike be declared, or any of the foreign officers of the union be called in. While it would be more Canadian and national if our labour unions were officered by Canadians, still you cannot coerce the labouring men. Let us therefore endeavour, on more amiable and conciliatory lines, to cultivate among our labouring people the opinion that it will be more in their interest in every way to have their organizations and unions officered by men of their own nationality.


Robert Holmes: In discussing this clause I will endeavour to confine my remarks to the clause itself. I would ask if it is in order to discuss on this clause the various phases of the labour question ?


Peter Macdonald: The discussion has been quite irregular, and I would ask hon. members of the committee to come back to the provision before us.


Nathaniel Boyd: It seems to me that the discussion has not only gone beyond the provisions of this Bill, but that we have been taking up the time of this House in considering legislation which we will have no power to make any practical use of. After we have adopted this measure, we will have no means of compelling either one side or the other to be governed by it or to accept any awai'd which it may enable us to make. It seems to me that the only object of this Bill-the only effect it has had or can possibly have-is to enable those who represent the labour unions and professional sympathizers with labour to spread themselves and speak to the gallery. It has certainly been taken advantage of to-night for this puipose, and in this connection to attribute opinions to the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock), to which I am sure the majority of this House will agree with me in saying, he never gave

expression when speaking on this Bill. The hon. gentleman who last addressed the House spoke about flaunting the red rag to the bull and agitators, and all that kind of thing. I do not know what sort of a constituency the hon. gentleman represents, but I do not believe that my hon. friend for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) would make use of any expressions calculated to create the impression that he is opposed to the labour of this country. Why, everybody knows that he employs a great many men, everybody knows that he furnishes work and money for many more men-in all probability for one thousand men to every one employed by the hon. gentleman who has taken this opportunity to indulge in this very paltry attack. How many of these men, I may ask, employ labourers ? How many of the lawyers who have found it necessary to spread themselves and wave their arms here tonight are employing one hundred, or twenty-five, or ten men-or even one, unless it be an underpaid clerk ? Mr. Chairman, the fact is this, that without capital, labour is of very little use ; and it iis when labour is at its highest and when men are drawing probably the highest wages they have drawn for ten years, at a time when they can afford to waste time, that they turn a willing ear to the agitator, and the agitator is always there ready to take advantage of the opportunity. And I have no hesitation in saying-and I have watched this question with considerable interest-that just such Acts as we have listened to to-night are what very frequently leave the labourer without his hire. For the capitalist is not obliged to put his money out in precarious undertakings; and when the labourer becomes so exacting as he is becoming in Canada today and throughout the United States, capital draws in and says, Well, we don't have to continue those worring misunderstandings. We can get along very satisfactorily by keeping our money in the savings banks, and we know which side suffers then. But we have so many men in Canada and in the United States who are so anxious to stand well with this labouring element that as I have said before, in order to win this vote, they are ready to assent to things that do harm both to labour and to capital, but the greatest harm to the men they pretend to serve.
Amendment (Mr. Puttee) adopted.


Peter Macdonald: Shall the amendment moved by Mr. Charlton be adopted ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: What is the meaning of that amendment ?


John Charlton: That persons not members of labour associations or trades unions shall not be discriminated against in the settlement of labour disputes.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) think that this accomplishes the object lie has in view ?


John Charlton: I think so.
Amendment (Mr. Charlton) adopted.
Bill, as amended, reported.



IMPORTATION OF ALIENS.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Charlton : that Bill (No. 106) to amend the Act to restrict the importation and employment of aliens, be now read a second time.
John Charlton: I desire to make a very few remarks upon this Bill


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I think the hon. member (Mr. Charlton) has already spoken.


William Ross: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I think the hon. member (Hon. Mr. Ross) who moves the motion to adjourn the debate, seconded the motion for the second reading of the Bill.


John Charlton: If permitted to speak on the motion to adjourn the debate-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I do not think I am able to put the motion to adjourn the debate, because the hon. member who moved it himself seconded the motion for the second reading of the Bill.


John Charlton: The non. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) this afternoon had extended to him the courtesy of three or four minutes-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: There is no motion before the Chair, except the second reading of the Bill.


Hance James Logan: I move the adjournment of the debate.


John Charlton: I presume the motion will carry. I am under great obligation co my hon. friend who has kindly come to my rescue, and I think his motion will stand as a motion and probably be acted upon by the House in the affirmative. However. I desire to say a few words with reference to the Bill that is now under consideration of this House. The Alien Labour Law of 1897, in section five, chapter eleven, provided that new industries established for the first time in Canada might employ skilled labour brought from abroad in cases where such labour was unobtainable in Canada. This provision did not apply to industries already in existence. The Bill I have the honour to offer to the House proposes to expunge the words ' in or upon any new industries not at present established in Canada,' and to provide that skilled labour may be employed upon industries in Canada

provided such skilled labour is not obtainable in this country. Now, I am unable to understand why any discrimination should under the provisions of this Act of 1897, have been made against the established industries of this country, why, this provision should have been made to apply only to new industries being established here for the first time. I venture to think that in no other country in the world has such a provision been adopted or is such a provision in force.
The Alien Labour Law, of which this provision is a part, was, in my opinion, founded altogether upon false principles. It was adopted-perhaps I am not entitled to say avowedly-but it was adopted as we all know in retaliation for a similar law of the United States, a most unjust and abused law, passed by congress and enforced in that country. Now, this American law, absurd in its operations, was one that we copied in the provision made in this chapter eleven of the statutes of 1897, and it is a Jaw that has not been enforced in the United States against Canada, it is so manifestly abused that public opinion there does not require its enforcement. To-day hundreds of persons cross from Windsor to Detroit every morning and engage in operations in that city, every one of whom could be turned back if the Alien Law were enforced. The same is being done at Buffalo and a number of other towns on the frontier. Labour from the Canadian side passes over unimpeded and in violation of the provisions of the Alien Labour Law; yet we have a law on the statute-book here which, in so far as these provisions about skilled labour is concerned is, if not rigidly enforced, is so much of an impediment to the manufacturers as to be found by them very oppressive in its operation, and very detrimental to their interests.


George Taylor: Will the hon. gentleman name one manufacturer who has suffered on account of this law.


John Charlton: Yes, I will name myself; and I can procure for the hon. gentleman many names of manufacturers. This Bill was put into my hands by the Manufacturers' Association with a representation that the operaton of this Bill was very detrimental to their interests. Now, in this age, there is a keen competition between manufacturing nations. The manufacturing interests of Great Britain, the manufacturing interests of Germany, add of Russia, and of the United States for that matter, are keenly alive to the importance of adopting new and improved machinery ; and in all these nations anything that is invented that lessens the cost of production is at once seized upon by active and progressive manufacturers. The invention of new machinery has in the United States given that country the lead in the boot and shoe trade, in
various other lines of business. The boot and shoe trade machinery in the United (States, machinery for the production of pig iron, for the manipulation of steel, and various other lines of manufacture, are imported into Germany, into Great Britain, into Russia, and with this machinery it becomes necessary in most cases to send skilled labour from the country where the machinery is invented to the country where it is to be put into operation. Now, under this law a Canadian manufacturer is unable to avail himself of the advantages that will be conferred upon the country by the introduction of new and improved machinery that is calculated to reduce the cost of production in his particular line of business, because he is prohibited by law from importing the labour that is necessary to put that machinery into operation, to run it and to teach Canadian operators how to run it.
The labour unions, I suppose, are unfavourable to this provision. I think they stand in their own light in this matter, and fail to understand the scope of the operation of this measure. If there was no impediment in the way of introducing new machinery to give the manufacturers the facilities that they think necessary to put that improved machinery into operation. The law is utterly absurd. The law does not propose to give to the manufacturers the right to employ skilled labour or to bring in skilled labour that is obtainable in Canada. The Bill simply provides that those provisions regarding skilled labour should be applied to all manufacturing interests; that the skilled labour can be imported for carrying on these manufacturing operations if that skilled labour is not obtainable in this country. Well, who can object to that ? What possible objection can there be to the permission given to manufacturers to improve their methods of production and bring in the most modern and up-to-date machinery to enable them to compete with their rivals in the United States and other countries ? They have got to do it if they are going to hold their place in the race. But this law which prohibit them from obtaining artisans and experts that can put that machinery up, and run it, and teach others to run it, is a law detrimental to the manufacturing industries of Canada. Certainly we ought to afford to the manufacturing interests reasonable protection, reasonable advantages, reasonable privileges. We ought not to debar them from the introduction of methods. and means, and machinery that will permit them to reduce the cost of production, to increase the effectiveness of their staff, and to bring them into competition with other manufacturing interests that have all these appliances. The provision that prohibits the employment or the introduction of skilled labour if it is obtainable in Canada will protect the interest of skilled labour here, and will prevent any abuse. The manufacturer is not going to import skilled


John Charlton: labour at a bigh cost or bring it from abroad if he can get it in Canada, and if he can get it fifty or sixty per cent cheaper. In no case will the manufacturer import skilled labour that is obtainable in this country, and in that fact is a safeguard against abuse in reference to this matter. I therefore beg to move the second reading of this Bill, which eliminates the provision with regard to established industries and permits any manufacturing industry in Canada to import skilled labour where that labour is not obtainable in this country.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: My hon. friend suggests that the necessity for this amendment arises from the fact that occasionally there is a change of machinery in old established industries, and that there is no labour in Canada capable of working the new machinery. Perhaps such a state of affairs from time to time does exist. But I would rather think that in the introduction of new machinery to-day there is quite enough ingenuity amongst the workmen engaged in our industries to enable them in a short time, and with proper educational advantages afforded them, to learn how to make use of this new machinery. I recollect one instance in point. I remember quite well what was supposed to be an intricate new piece of machinery, having been introduced by an established industry, and there were no skilled labourers in Canada capable of working that machinery. The employer came to me and asked me what he ought to do. It was not for me to guide him but I intimated to him a very simple method by which he might get over the difficulty. Instead of importing an army of skilled workmen to work the machines I suggested that he might get some one to teach the men in his employ to use these machines. He did so and in a short time he had these men, Canadians, working these machines. Such a course as this might get over many of the difficulties to which my hon. friend alludes. To make the amendment we perhaps would open the door to an abuse of the Act, which my hon. friend knows was placed on the statute-book not from choice but from necessity. Therefore, I would favour the amendment of the hon. member for Cumberland Mr. Logan) that the debate stand adjourned.
Amendment (Mr. Logan) agreed to, and debate adjourned.



FRUIT MARKS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HENDERSON moved second reading of Bill (No. 130) to amend the Fruit Marks Act, 1901.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad if the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) would follow the example of the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Smith) and allow his Bill to stand until the next
day, so that it may have the personal attention of the hon. Minister of Agriculture.


David Henderson: I would be very glad to meet the wishes of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) in his absence, if I could have any assurance that this Bill will again be reached during the session.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


David Henderson: Then I shall accede to the request.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. Minister of Agriculture arrived in Ottawa this evening, and will be able to give the Bill his personal attention on the next day when public Bills are taken up.


David Henderson: Next Monday will be a holiday, and it will be two weeks from to-day.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There will be another day. I will give my hon. friend that assurance.
Order allowed to stand.



PROHIBITION OF THE IMPORTATION, MANUFACTURE, OR SALE OF CIGARETTES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BICKERDIKE moved the second reading of Bill (No. 133) to prohibit the importation, manufacture, or sale of cigarettes.
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have to declare in regard to this Bill that I do not consider it has been properly introduced, and for the following reasons : When this Bill was introduced the other day, I did not then have the opportunity of reading it over before its introduction, and I was then unable to declare whether it should have originated in committee of the whole House, or whether it should have been introduced on a motion for leave. I see now that the Bill has for its object to prohibit the manufacture and sale of any cigarette or cigarette papers, and the Bill also provides that no cigarette or cigarette papers shall be imported into the country. It was suggested the other day, when the Bill was introduced, that such a measure could only be brought in by a member of the administration, and not by a private member, because it affects the revenue. The contention concerned was an erroneous construction of our parliamentary law, because according to our rule 86, which governs the point raised the other day, it is provided that the House cannot provide any vote for the apportioning of any part of the public revenue, and cannot impose any tax or impost that has not been first recommended to the House by the Governor. This Bill, though dealing with the question of tariff, does not impose any tax or impost, and it can then be introduced by a private member. But when introduced by a private member, the proposition should

be first considered in a committee of the whole House. A Bill relating to trade and to alteration of the laws concerning trade should originate in committee of the whole House. By section 41, of our rules, it is provided as follows :
No Bill relating to trade, or alteration of the laws concerning trade is to be brought Into the House until the proposition shall have been first considered in the Committee of the Whole House, and agreed unto by the House.
This enactment has generally been followed in the Commons of Great Britain, as in the legislative assembly of the colonies having constitutional government, though they have not in England, as in some of the colonies, a rule as formally expressed as it is in our procedure, as you may see by Bourinot, pages 591 and 592. We have in England as well as in this country certain precedents on the matter. I will not undertake to quote them all, but I would be permitted to refer to a precedent of 1883, which is to be found in the ' Commons Journal,' page 377, where a Bill to regulate the sale of or prohibit the traffic in intoxicating liquors originated in committee. In 1885 a Bill to amend certain portions of the License Act, of 1883 was initiated in committee. In 1S80 and 1885, a Bill regulating the sale of fertilizers originated also in committee, and in 1886, a Bill regulating the manufacture and sale of oleo-margarine and butterine also originated in committee. I then come to the conclusion that this Bill was not properly introduced in the House, and the fact of presenting it on motion for leave would be a departure from the usage which has been adhered to in numerous instances and precedents. I declare the motion for its second reading as being irregular and out of order.


Robert Bickerdike: Whilst I shall bow respectfully to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to the fact that I was going to move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole. I would refer you to the decision of Mr. Speaker Cockburn, given in 1868, which is as follows:
The procedure on a Bill which ought to have originated in Committee of the Whole, but which has been read a first time by leave of the House, can be proceeded with when the House has subsequently resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, and adopted the resolution on which the Bill is based.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That has not been followed in this case. In the case quoted by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bickerdike) the resolution had been adopted in Committee of the Whole when the second reading of the Bill came up for discussion. In this instance the same procedure has not been followed.


Robert Bickerdike: I would move that the rule be suspended, and that we go into Committee of the Whole.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: 


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That motion has to be made with the unanimous consent of the House.


Robert Bickerdike: I have no doubt that the House will consent, because we have to have a discussion of this Bill at some time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think that section 31, of the rules and orders require that two day's notice must be given.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Yes, the motion has to be made with the unanimous consent of the House.


Andrew B. Ingram: Mr. Speaker, could you say why the objections were not taken when the Bill was first introduced, in order to save time ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Because, as I explained a minute ago, I had not seen the Bill then, and I could not decide whether the Bill was for the purpose I have indicated or not.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it is fair to ask, in view of the vote given on the resolution introduced by my hon. friend (Mr. Bickerdike), if the government will take any steps to cure this difficulty, which is, after ail, only a technical difficulty ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is nothing in the circumstances which requires the government to intervene. Mr. Speaker has explained that this Bill may be brought up again by way of resolution. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bickerdike) has only to give notice of his resolution in the usual way, and proceed in committee in order that this Bill may be introduced. It does not require any action upon the part of the government.


Robert Bickerdike: Will the government give me an opportunity to go on with the Bill if this is done ? It will probably be a little late for this session.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That can be considered later on. In the meantime the hon. gentleman' had better proceed in the ordinary way as pointed out by Mr. Speaker.
Bill withdrawn.



STEAMBOAT INSPECTION ACT. 189S- AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEIGHTON MCCARTHY (North Sim-coe) moved second reading of Bill (No. 136) to amend the Steamboat Inspection Act, 1898. He said : This Bill proposes to alleviate certain grievances which the National Association of Marine Engineers of Canada labour under. This body has addressed to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prgfontaine) and to other members of the House, circulars in which they have set out their grievances under seven heads. The first three of these are as follows :
1.	That every vessel coming under the Steamboat Inspection Act of Canada of whatever ca-

pa-city be required to carry certificated engineers.
2.	That all temporary certificates be abolished.
3.	That engineers holding 4th class certificates be allowed to take charge of boats from 5 N. H. P. single cylinder, up to 10 N. H. P. of compound type.
The Bill which I now propose will remove the grievances specified under these three different heads. As regards the other four sub-heads of the complaint of the marine engineers of Canada, I do not think they can be reached by a Bill of this kind, because they are regulated by Order in Council passed by the Governor General in Council upon the recommendation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. These four subheads are as follows :
4.	Candidate for the fourth-class certificate must have 36 months' service in a machine shop on the making and repairing of steam engines, also 12 months' service in the engine room as an oiler or fireman, or in lieu of above service, he must serve 48 months as fireman or oiler on the watch.
5.	That all candidates before going up for examination for certificates have their credentials or recommendations examined by the subordinate council of the National Association of Marine Engineers in the locality in which they reside for verification.
6.	That owing to confliction often arising between the engineers and the deck officers, re the use and care of deck hose on steamboats, such hose being used in the dual capacity of fire and deck hose, and which hose is used exclusively by the deck officers. Therefore, we, the engineers of Canada request, that the law be amended so that after said hose is put in proper order and passes the scrutiny of the inspector, that all responsibility for the proper care of such deck or fire hose be transferred from the engineer to the deck officers for the remainder of the season.
7.	That the Order in Council permitting vessels to ply in Canadian waters, irrespective of Canadian laws, or inspection and manned by uncertificated engineers is a detriment to the marine interests of Canada in competing with Canadian built vessels, and also an injustice to men holding certificates of competency under the Canadian law. We ask that said order be rescinded and that all vessels plying in Canadian waters be subject to the laws governing Canadian built vessels.
Every hon. gentleman will see at a glance what is proposed by the Bill which I now introduce, and it will not be necessary therefore for me to dwell at length upon its different sections until the Bill reaches committee. I desire, however, to point out to the hon. the Minister of Marine that should he desire to provide a remedy for the four last subsections of the grievances complained of, he will have to amend the Order in Council now existing and in order to meet the desire of the National Association of Marine Engineers of Canada, X would sugest to the minister the advisability of amending part 5 of the regulations, section 112, subsection ' B.' which now reads as follows :
Engineers shall keep the fire pump and hose and their connections in perfect condition ready for immediate use and when found unfit for use
from age or other cause shall report their condition to the inspector of hulls by whom the steamer was last inspected.
This section should be amended by substituting the word ' put ' for the word ' keep ' in the first line thereof and striking out the words ' or other cause ' in the fourth line thereof and substituting the words ' or defects,' and by adding the following paragraph to the section :
And after the granting of the certificates under the Steamboat Inspection Act, the said hose and their connections, shall be in charge of the deck officers of the said steamboat who shall be responsible therefor, and If at any time they are fo-und unfit for use from age, or other cause, they shall report their condition to the inspector of hulls by whom the steamer was last inspected.
I would also suggest to the hon. minister the following amendments to part 6 of his regulations, subsections ' B,' ' C,' ' D,' and ' F ' of section 1 should be repealed and the following substituted :
(b)	He shall have served an apprenticeship of not less than thirty-six months in a steam-engine shop and being employed on the making and repairing of steam engines, and have served twelve months in the engine room as an oiler or fireman of a steamboat-or, if he has not served such apprenticeship he shall have been employed for not less than thirty-six months as a journeyman mechanic in some workshop on the making and repairing of steam engines and have served twelve months in the engine room of a steamboat as oiler or fireman ;-or
(c)	He shall have served at least thirty-six months in an engine room of a steamboat on the watch, and twelve months in the engine room of a steamboat as oiler or foreman ;-or
(d)	He shall have served not less than thirty-six months as oiler on the watch in the engine room of a steamer of not less than thirty nominal horse power, and twelve months in the engine room of a steamboat as oiler or fireman -or,
(e)	He Shall have served not less than forty-eight months as fireman on the watch in the fire hold of a steamboat of not less than thirty nominal horse power ;-
(f)	And in any of the above cases of service twelve (12) months service in a boiler shop on the making and repairing of steam boilers may be accepted in lieu of twelve months of the service named, provided however, that he shall in all cases have served at least twelve (12) months in the engine iroom of a steamboat as oiler or fireman.
The marine engineers think that these amendments will alleviate the grievance referred to in the six subsections of their complaint.
I may say that the main basis of the grievances of these gentlemen seems to be that an applicant may apply to the department and obtain a certificate enabling him to act as an engineer upon the different steamboats plying on Canadian waters. They allege that this authority has been granted and that certificates have been granted to various engineers when there was no necessity for such certificates being granted, the result being to deprive certified engineers of employment. These gentlemen tell
[Stage Direction]
me that there is really no necessity for granting these certificates to noil-certified engineers who have applied in previous years. I do not vouch for that because I have no personal knowledge thereof, but I do think that their contention is logical when they say that employment should be found for engineers holding certificates before another applicant should be given a certificate. If the department provides for amendments in the present regulations in the line of those suggested by the Marine Engineers' Association of Canada, it will go far to remove the difficulties which they now complain of. This association, I may say, is a large and representative body in Canada. They have held meetings at various places, and the circular which is addressed to me comes from St. John, N.B. I believe that every member of the House has received a copy of this circular, and that most, if not all, the members, have heard from the grand president of the association, who has spent some days in Ottawa.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond Prefon-taine).: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of
Marine and Fisheries, I have no objection to the Bill being read a second time, and being referred to the Committee of the Whole, and progress being reported, for the reason that up to the present time, I have been unable to get a full report on the subject from the officers of the department. As regards the merits of the Bill, I think there are some very good suggestions in it; there are others that may not be so good ; and before discussing the Bill as it should be discussed, I would like to get from the officers of my department the necessary information.


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I ask the minister whether the officers of this organization to which reference has been made by the hon. member for North Simcoe, did not appear before him recently?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: They were before me, and I have asked the department for a report which I have been unable to get as yet, owing to the opening of navigation and nearly all the officers being away.


James Clancy: I would like to ask if the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has heard more than one side of this question. It is, as the hon. gentleman knows, a very large question, and the Bill involves probably more than appears on the surface. I am not going to give opposition to the Bill, but I do think the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will be more apt to do justice to all parties concerned if he has this Bill printed and distributed, and gives the country a chance to see what it contains before it is crystallized into law. And I hope the hon. gentleman will not take Mr. McCarthy.
simply one side of the case, and assume that there is no other.


Mr. W. F. McCREARY (Selkirk).: I have not had time to give this Bill the consideration I ought to give to it; but I would like to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to take into consideration the lakes situated in the west where it is somewhat difficult to get engineers to comply with what this Act calls for. On lake Winnipeg there are ten or fifteen boats used to haul nets to the frames. There are also one or two small tugs plying between Selkirk and Norway House. There are also one or two steamers on Lake Winnipegoosis. I have heard the owners of these boats complain of the difficulty of getting competent engineers up there, and it seems to me that if this Bill passes it will be almost impossible to get certificated engineers to go up for the short season, and the remuneration asked by them will be almost prohibitive. I do not want to object to the Bill, but I merely ask the minister to take into consideration these lakes before he allows it to pass this session.


Mr. SAMUEL HUGHES (Victoria).: This engineer business is a matter of very serious importance. I know that a committee in Toronto is searching for a gentleman named Cap. Sullivan, and be is drifting because an engineer cannot be got for the tug. This' engineer question is a very serious one.


David Henderson: I confess I have been considerably surprised to see a Bill of this character introduced by a private member instead of emanating from the government. I do not know why the hon. member for North Simcoe has brought forward this Bill. I do not know whether he has undertaken this duty without consulting the Department of Marine and Fisheries, but I certainly think that legislation of this kind should emanate from the minister who is responsible for such legislation, surrounded as he is by officers who should be able to give him every kind of information necessary to enable him to draft a proper Bill. I am sure the House would receive such a Bill with a great deal more confidence than one introduced by a private member, because we would have the assurance that those best qualified to deal with the matter had given the Bill their very careful judgment. I have looked at one or two clauses of this Bill, and I fail altogether to see any reason why the amendments proposed should be adopted. It would almost seem to me as if there were some other motive behind it than the public good-possibly a means of some particular person or class of persons securing a position, which, with a Bill emanating from the government, would not be permitted at all. I think the Minister of Marine and Fisheries should look carefully into this matter, and, if he intends to maintain the dignity

of the high and honourable position which he occupies, I would hardly think that he would permit even a supporter of his to forestall him by introducing important legislation of this character. X regard the whole Bill regarding steamboat inspection as one of the very greatest importance. Having in view the protection of life and property, it is a Bill that should be drafted with the very greatest care, and with all the safeguards that can possibly be thrown around it by the be'st qualified officers we have in the country to deal with the matter. It would be dangerous to allow a a Bill of this kind to go simply through a Committee of the House, which has not the advantage of the experience and skill of the gentlemen who ought first to pronounce on a Bill of this kind. I trust that the minister will take the matter into consideration, and guard the interests of the country by first bringing to bear upon the Bill all the information that is possessed by the officers of his department.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: I do not think there is much in the objections of my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson). The association at whose instance no doubt my hon. friend brought this Bill before the House, is a very large, important, influential and intelligent class of people, and its representations have no doubt been made to the minister and to the department and to the members of this House from year to year. I think the hon. member for North Simcoe is quite within his right, as any member would be, in introducing legislation of this class, and I think it is a very good way to bring the matter to the attention of the House and the country. One hon. member suggested that the Bill might be printed and distributed among those who should have an opportunity of studying the views of the association in regard to the proposed legislation. With regard to the criticism of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the remarks he has made show that his department are taking a deep interest in this subject, with a view to protecting the public interest, and he has informed the House that the delay which he is now asking for is necessary because he has not yet received a report from the technical officers of his department on these matters. I am inclined to think myself that some of the amendments asked for by this association are just and defensible, in the public interest ; with regard to others there may be a difference of opinion ; and in that respect, I agree with the hon. member for Halton that those interested in these matters should be asked to report to the minister and the House, and give us the benefit of their experience. At the same time, I think my hon. friend is doing his duty to a large class of people and to the public in bringing this matter before the House, as he has done, because it is difficult for one not well
versed in all these matters to understand the representations made to them by the parties so much interested.


James Clancy: Has the hon. gentleman taken into consideration the fact that there is a very large number of men in this country who have never passed examinations, who have never belonged to an association, who are advanced in years and who are yet very efficient men, owing to their long experience. That class of men would be entirely cut out if this Bill became law.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That being the case, no doubt the House will be particular about passing legislation that would do injustice to a large class of men. We all know that there are many men capable of doing work of this description, who perhaps could not pass a technical examination, and that is one of the great difficulties we have in legislating on matters of this kind. But that objection could be guarded against no doubt by the officers of the department whose special duty it is to deal with these matters. We have to think first of the public who use the boats, and then we have to see that no injustice is done to the class just mentioned. But I think we may by means of legislation bring about a gradual improvement in the class of men who are taking up this business.


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

Mr.   W.@: SCOTT (West Assiniboia) moved second reading of the Bill (No. 137) to regulate the sale and provide for the inspection of textile fabrics. He said : The purpose of this measure is fairly well set out in its title. The main intent of the Bill is contained in the third clause, which reads as follows.
3. Every manufacturer of textile fabrics shall mark, label or tag such goods in plain printed letters or figures which cannot be detached except by design ; and the mark, label or tag shall state accurately the constituent fibres of every material of which such goods are composed and their relative proportions.
As I said when introducing this measure, it is one of considerable importance to the public in general, the wool raisers of the country in particular, and incidentally to the woollen manufacturers. I may state that the measure was prepared by the Sheep-growers' Association of the North-west Territories. at whose instance I am introducing the Bill. The conditions of the wool trade in the North-west Territories, as throughout Canada generally, have been for a long time past very depressed. It must be within the knowledge of every hon. member that notwithstanding the great prosperity which prevails generally, the prices of wool remain depressed, not only in this country, but in the world over. In England many of the


David Henderson: I rise to a point of order. I submit that this Bill is not regularly before the House. This is a Bill affecting trade and has not been introduced first by resolution. Following the decision you gave, Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago,
I fail to see any difference between the present Bill and the Bill of the hon. member for Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike); and if you are going to rule that Bills of this kind must be introduced by resolution, I do not see that there is any object, at this late hour, in continuing the discussion. I ask for your ruling.


Mr. SCOTT.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) will defer his point of order for three minutes, I will state the other point I wish to call to the attention of the House.


David Henderson: I think that when tlie whole question of the introduction of Bills has been so thoroughly considered and the similarity of the two Bills is so complete, there should be no difficulty in arriving at the decision at once as to whether this Bill is in order or not.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am afraid that the point of order taken by the hon. member (Mr. Henderson) is well founded. The same question came up some years ago. I find that the Bills respecting the inspection of staple articles of Canadian produce have generally been founded on resolutions. If I mistake not this Bill provides for certain inspection. Now, we have decisions in similar cases. It was decided that a Bill respecting the culling and measurement of timber should originate in Committee of the Whole; also a Bill regulating the sale and disposal of butter did not pass its second reading because it was not commenced in 104
Committee of the Whole. I think this last decision applies to the Bill of the hon. gentleman, and I do not hink the motion for the second reading would be in order.



DRY DOCKS CONSTRUCTION-GOVERNMENT AID.

[Stage Direction]
Resolution respecting the payment of a subsidy for the construction of a dry dock, read the second time, and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 178) respecting the encouragement of the construction of dry docks.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 11.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 19, 1903.