1903-09-08

Mr. AULAY MORRISON moved :: That that portion of the forty-ninth rule, which limits the time for presenting private Bills, he suspended in reference to a Bill to incorporate the Westminster Bridge Company.


Mr. SPROULE.: I think that in future, when Bills are presented at an irregular time, they ought to be accompanied by some explanation which would be a justification for them. There might arise exceptional circumstances which would justify departing from the usual rule, and I think it would be a good plan to put the House in possession of such information as in the opinion of the House would be justified.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. MORRISON moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 249) to incorporate the Westminster Bridge Company.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
Aulay MacAulay Morrison: That, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the 29th report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, the sixtieth rule of the House be suspended for the remainder of the session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. T. SCHELL (Glengarry).: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to a certain matter, and for that purpose I would move the adjournment of the House. In the county of Glengarry we have several societies, principally Scottish and French. These societies at different times hold celebrations, which we consider a right and proper thing to do, and on these occasions we frequently have men of eminence to take part. Last Wednesday the Earl of Dundonald consented to meet the Scottish clans of Glengarry at their celebration. The arrangements were all completed the night before, and on Wednesday morning he was awaited by a number of the Scottish people who had gathered at the railway station. On my arrival on the same train by which he was expected to come, it was found that Lord Dundonald was not present. On inquiring of the cause by putting the telegraph wires in motion, we found that he had received that morning a written message coming from the Bel] Telephone Company in these words : * Weather unfavourable ; postpone your visit.' I just wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Bell Telephone Company, an organization brought into being by this


Mr. OLIVER.: House, and protected by its charter, has such a loose way of carrying on its operations as under certain circumstances to cause serious consequences. It appears that Lord Dundonald placed confidence in the message delivered by that company. I realize that this being a private matter, there is no claim. I just wish to draw the attention of the House to the position in which the Beil Telephone Company stands in relation to the public of Canada. I may say that when the true condition of affairs was realized, His Lordship immediately ordered a special train to convey him to Alexandria, and the celebration took place as it was originally planned.
Motion negatived.



PASSENGER RATES ON THE GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY.

Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).: 1 have had placed in my hands in the last half hour a telegram, and I would like to draw the attention of the acting Minister of Railways and Canals to its contents, and request him most respectfully to inquire into it. It is as follows :
Niagara Falls, Ont., September 7, 1903. E. F. Clarke, M.P.,
House of Commons, -Ottawa.
Railroad fare for Yankees from Niagara Falls, N.Y., to Toronto and return, one dollar and fifty cents ; -railroad fare for Canadians from Niagara Falls, Ont., to Toronto and return, two dollars and fifty cents. Bring this up in the Ho-use land ask if it is right when they are trying to put the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway through. I will vouch for this.



W. R. FERGUSON.

[Stage Direction]
I would be obliged if the hon. minister would make inquiries to ascertain if it is possible that this discrimination in rates between passengers from the same place and over the same system takes place.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Do I understand that that is on the Grand Trunk Railway ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Yes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I shall be very glad to have it inquired into.



CANADIAN BUTTER.

Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, as I now see the Minister of Agriculture in his place, I desire to say that I took occasion yesterday to refer to an interview which took place in Toronto, given by Mr. W. T. R. Preston, Commissioner of Immigration in London, to the Toronto ' News,' in which he spoke in a manner not at all complimentary to a very important agricultural product. I had hoped that the minister would make some statement with a view to lessening the mischief which I think
was calculated to be done by the statement made by Mr. Preston.


Mr. SPEAKER.: If the hon. gentleman wishes to put a question to the government, he cannot make any statement.


David Henderson: I will move


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That cannot be done. I may say, with respect to these questions which are put when the Orders of the Day are called, that they are not quite a regular way of proceeding. At the same time, l suppose that questions at such a time may lie allowed, but they should be put as questions and without comment.


David Henderson: If you will permit me to proceed, I will confine myself to a question. But it will be necessary for me to draw the attention of the minister to a further despatch under ' Canadian Associated Press ' which the minister will find in the ' Citizen ' of this morning. I would ask if he had inquired into the matter and purposes taking any steps with a view to removing the slander that, I think, has been
placed upon Canadian butter-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman should not


David Henderson: Of course, not a slander by any member of this House.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That is not the point. But when a question is asked before the Orders of the Day are called, the rules applying to questions should be observed. The question should be a question purely and simply and should not contain any statement of facts.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) has put the question as to whether the Minister of Agriculture has looked into the matter referred to in the paragraph indicated. As it was only yesterday that the paragraph came to the government's attention, I have had no opportunity of doing so. I certainly consider the statements made in regard to Canadian butter are not justified by the quality of that article of our produce or the reputation it has gained in the British market. But I shall he very glad indeed to take such steps as may be consistent with the objects of the government to see that the reputation of Canadian butter is protected.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 215) to amend the Criminal Code.-The Minister of Justice.
On schedule, section 3,
Section 3. By repealing paragraph (t) thereof and substituting the following paragraph :
(t) the expression ' person,' ' owner,' and ' every one,' and other expressions of the
[Stage Direction]
same kind, include His Majesty, and all public bodies, bodies corporate, societies and companies, and inhabitants of counties, parishes, municipalities or other districts, In relation to such acts and things as they are capable of doing and owning respectively.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: The only change there in the insertion of the word ' Every one.' The object is to remove certain doubts that now exist. The intention is to make the definition applicable to corporations throughout the whole system of the code.
Schedule 75a,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This clause came up for consideration some time ago. We thought it better to put it over, to consider whether it was advisable to pass it or not. This was adopted, as I explained, from the New York Penal Code. The object is to make provision with respect to men engaged in the active militia who are called out in time of strike. 1 propose to fill up the blanks in this clause, with regard to the fine, with the words ' not exceeding fifty dollars and not less than ten dollars.'


Mr. GOURLEY.: That section seems to go a long way. Here are two clauses A and B. A contains the words ' deprive any other person of his employment ' and B the words ' or prevents any other person from being employed by himself or another,' while C has '.obstructs or annoys any other person or his employer in respect of the trade, business or employment of such other person, because such other person is an officer or man of the active militia, and so on. These terms are very broad, and would take in every labour organization trying to enforce the rights of its members. Does the minister think that subsections A and B are controlled by these words ' because such other person is an officer or man of the active militia,' as C is ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Of course.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: It did not strike me so when I first read it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I cannot see any doubt about it myself.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Has that first section been taken verbatim from the New York statute 7


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would not like to say it is absolutely verbatim, but it lias been drafted for the purpose of conveying my own ideas.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: We have the New York Act here ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is in the library. If my hon. friend desires to have this section stand over, I am willing' because there is another section that I want to ask to stand myself.


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: 


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I would like to have it stand. Does the Minister of Justice know whether it has received any judicial interpretation in New York?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not know how old the New York statute is, but it has been in force there for a couple of years. I would not consider it important whether a judicial construction has been put upon it or not, provided it conveys our own ideas.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: As I read it, I have great doubt whether (a) and (b) are controlled in any way by (c).


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. gentleman will notice that the word ' or ' runs through the sections, and it is governed by the word1 ' because.'


Seymour Eugene Gourley: At the first reading, it seems to me you have to introduce a very nice construction to get (a) and (b) controlled by (c). I am afraid the courts will say that parliament has not a nice literary idea in drawing these clauses.
Section 75a allowed to stand.
On section 198a-amending section 205,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This was introduced at the request of the Royal Art Union of London, with the laudable desire of distributing works, of art. But since the section has been introduced, representations have been made to me that it is liable to open the door again to the inconveniences that have resulted from lotteries established heretofore in Montreal. I have endeavoured to point out that this amendment will not produce that effect, but those who are interested in the good work carried on against lotteries seem to think it is liable to have a damaging effect upon their work in Montreal. Consequently, I think it is better to allow that section to drop for the present.
On section 257a,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this instead of the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Montreal, St. Lawrence, (Mr. Bickerdike) ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would not like my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) to say that it is instead of it, or in substitution for the Bill introduced by my hon. friend for Montreal, St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike). This is a little attempt at legislation on my own account. I am sorry to say that the legislation I have introduced does not appear to satisfy any person. I have had protests from all over Canada from the Women's Christian Temperance Union to the effect that this legislation does not go far enough. On the other hand I have had protests from other quarters to the effect that this legislation goes very much farther than is necessary under the circumstances. In view of that I sacrifice this section to the protests of both parties and let it go at present in the hope that next year I may be

able to do something better. This can go as a peace offering to both factions.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Does the hon. Minister of Justice expect next year to be able to do anything better in the way of satisfying the people ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I thought if I took the middle course that it would satisfy both parties.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Is it not the best test of your proposal that both sides complain ? Though not an extremist, I think something should be done in the way of controlling the cigarette smoking habit in reference to boys of a certain age. I do not know what should be the limit, but I think that the adoption of a provision of this kind is good policy. We should not be entirely controlled by people who send us telegrams. We ought to make up our minds what is right and do it. I think the horn minister had better let it stay as it was at the beginning.


Mr. FRASER.: I regret very much that the parties who sought for prohibition would not accept this excellent step in the direction of what they asked for. I am very much surprised that there should be any objection raised by the Women's Christian Temperance Union against this legislation because it is a firm step in advance. While I would not say that such a thing as prohibition is going to effect a cure, I think that as a deterrent this will be found to be an excellent piece of legislation. I am sorry that the hon. Minister of Justice has permitted these letters to affect him. I know his equable legal temperament and he might say that viewing the question from this side and that, he might better drop the whole thing. I would say that any correspondence that would bring about the result of dropping this section would only seem to indicate that those who had asked for it had permitted their better judgment to run away witli them.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not their better judgment, their worse judgment.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I put it that way because they are ladies

their better judgment. I must be gallant. I can only say that a great deal of good will result from this legislation and I do not know how we could get at lit in any better way than in the way which is proposed. I never believed that by saying cigarettes shall not be manufactured or imported we were going to prevent anybody from smoking cigarettes, but I say to those who are interested in preventing boys from smoking cigarettes that a great deal will be accomplished by legislation of this kind. I regret very much that those reformers, who are among the salt of the earth, the best people in Canada, should have done what reformers very often do, namely, if they do not get all they want they will not accept that which is in their best* interests.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Do they object to this clause ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Yes, that is the trouble.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: They want it made stronger.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I think in view of that fact the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) is acting wisely, if the people in whose interest this clause is prepared will not accept it. It must be borne in mind, too, that a great deal of pressure has been brought to bear on the hon. minister by people who claim that the clause he has prepared is too drastic. A large delegation of persons engaged in the tobacco business came down to interview the hon. minister hnd they also interviewed a great many members. They pointed out that they did not open up tobacco shops for the purpose of selling cigarettes to minors, and that if the clause which the hon. Minister of Justice inserted in this Bill were permitted to pass it would work a great injustice to them. They recognize that the evil is one that should be grappled with, and what they suggested was that the clause should stand for twelve {months and that in the meantime both parties in the matter should make representations to the hon. Minister of Justice in the hope that one that would more nearly commend itself to both parties could be adopted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This clause has just the fatal objection which was urged against the Ontario Act. The Ontario Act provides against the selling of cigarettes to minors under 10 years of age. The way the Act is evaded is this :	A number of boys will
congregate in some place. One or two of them will be over 10 years of age and the rest of the boys will give their money into the hands of the boys who are over 16 years of age who will buy the cigarettes and distribute them amongst their companions. The raising of the age limit by two years or more will not prevent that from being done in future as it is done to-day and I do not wonder that the Women's Christian Temperance Union object to it.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: We should not be deterred from passing good legislation such as this because it will be evaded in certain directions. I cannot assume that in all cases you will And boys who are ready to do what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) suggests. I admit that boys will have as many little ideas in their heads as to how to evade this law as grown up people, but the fact that this law will be on the statute-book will act as a deterrent and an educator. It is a good deal that the boy will know that it is upon the statute-book. The country is full of good boys who smoke cigarettes without perhaps knowing that it is not a good thing for themselves, but the fact that the boy will know that what he is doing is not only not good for himself but that it is not legal, will have good effect. I regret

that the Women's Christian Temperance | Union did not accept and accept gratefully this step which is a step in the right direction.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I think this is a very important and strong section, notwithstanding the fact that it draws an objection from the Women's Christian Temperance Union of Canada and the tobacco manufacturers.
I know, speaking for Nova Scotia, that they represent the very best class of people down there. I do not know what they may represent elsewhere but the Women's Christian Temperance Union represent people who are not cranks but who are anxious for the preservation of their families and who are desirous of promoting those objects which every woman and mother ought to be interested in. I agree with the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) thoroughly that this is a step in the right direction and I believe so on two grounds. First,
I believe it will deter the ordinary dealer from selling to a boy. because such an Act would impose upon him a heavy penalty. Secondly, I agree with the argument of the hon. member for Guysborough. that once a boy understands that the smoking of cigarettes under a certain age is illegal, unless he is a very bad boy, he will be deterred. Once he knows it is illegal to smoke cigarettes, once he knows that if he goes along the street with a cigarette in his mouth he may be reported to a law officer he will be encouraged to abandon the habit. The sellers of tobacco are respectable men, they do not want to be subjected to prosecution for selling to a minor and to be liable to the penalty under the law. Therefore, you reach the boy who wants to smoke the cigarette ; and you reach the man who sells cigarettes.
Now, while I am not an extremest in any of these ways, yet, I cannot but recoguize the facts, as I see them. I have observed, on the streets of the town of Truro, young boys, of thirteen and fourteen, smoking cigarettes ; and, in every case, they are degenerate looking, emaciated, pale-faced ; and I have no doubt that this is due to their having acquired this habit. No doubt, this habit is striking at the manhood of the country, equally with the drinking of liquor. Therefore, as everybody ought to be anxious that the strength of the country should be preserved, we ought to preserve young boys who might, from want of warning, and before they understand the value of strength and intellectual and physical power, destroy themselves, through this habit. For these reasons, I think this is a moderate section. I would ask the minister not to bow to every telegram he may receive. from interested parties, either from the Women's Christian Temperance Union, or from the cigarette people. They are interested parties. We are the judges ; we should sit here as competent men, listen to both the one side and the other, and decide the question. We should be prepared to say, this is right and fair, or, you are extreme in Mr. FRASER.
your views, you ask too much we cannot get the public opinion of Canada to go so far.
I am prepared, for one, to say to the minister, that I support this measure. Whatever may be the contention, on either side, this is a step in the right direction. If, later oh, we find this is likely to do good, we can go further. This section should be preserved.


Mr. HOLMES.: While this clause does not go so far as the original legislation proposed, I certainly think it should be allowed to stand. I had some conversation with the ladies of the Women's Christain Temperance Union, having been the seconder of the original resolution.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Robert Holmes: I am willing, at any time, to be again the seconder of a similar resolution. I was not the only member of the House who had an interview with the ladies. I fancy all the members had that pleasure. In conversation with them, after the original Bill was thrown out, I tried to persuade them to accept this as a half-way measure. I do not know what objections to it have been presented to the minister, but I believe that the mass of reformers-I mean reformers in the sense of those who are trying to reform this evil-will be satis-fled with this, as far as it goes. For my part, I would prefer something more drastic; but, failing that, I think reformers would be willing to accept this as half a loaf.
I would urge upon the minister to allow this to stand. The very fact that this is a Dominion law, that the force of the Dominion is behind it, will have a good effect in prevent the selling of cigarettes to boys. I would be glad to see the age limit raised a little further. When we had the discussion, I saw that notice had been given of a measure in the British parliament to provide that no tobacco in any form be sold to boys under twenty-one. I have no objection to the section now under discussion, so far as it goes, but my own preference would be to have the age limit raised. I think the minister would conform to public sentiment if he would allow this section to remain part of the Criminal Code ; I am sure it will receive the endorsation of the great bulk of the people who favour legislation of this kind. It may not meet the views of the Women's Christian Temperance Union. But if this legislation is not provided, they will probably come down to the House next year and ask for legislation similar to that which was thrown out. If this is enacted, it may anticipate that. While I favour the prohibition of the sale of cigarettes, 1 recognize that there are great difficulties m the way of such a measure. But, I am satisfied that a clause of this kind will be effective in accomplishing good, and I hope the minister will allow it to stand.


Mr. ROSAMOND.: I wish to add my word to what has been said by the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) and the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser).

This legislation is in the right direction. Too many young lads are in the habit of smoking cigarettes, and any legislation that [DOT]will have the effect of decreasing this practice is in the right direction. Therefore, I should be sorry if the Minister of Justice found it necessary to abandon this clause. I am not sure that the clause as framed is the best for the purpose, but it is a move in the right direction, and, if it is not found to be exactly right, it can be amended.


Mr. LOGAN.: When the resolution of the hon. member for Montreal, St. Lawrence, (Mr. Bickerdike) was before the House I took strong ground against it, because I believed, that if carried into law, it would not have the desired effect. I do not believe that public sentiment in this country would back up such a law if put upon the statute-book, that is, a law prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to any persons in Canada. Rut the present section, it seems to me, is a step in another direction, and in the right direction. I do not think anybody would charge me with being a crank on this question. But representing, as I do, a constituency whose people take a serious interest in this matter, I can only enter my protest against this section being withdrawn. It would have been far better, if this section is to be withdrawn, if it had never been put in the Bill. It is rather an indication to the people that we are afraid of the legislation, and it does not seem to me that that would have a salutary effect, so far as the boys of our land are concerned. I am not speaking here with reference to the tobacco habit. Probably a great many of us would not be very consistent in speaking on that subject. But I am here to say that I believe the smoking of cigarettes by boys is one of the worst evils we have in this country to-day, especially in the case of boys from fourteen to sixteen years of age. I would point out that we have upon the statute-books of a number of the provinces, a law similar to that here proposed. I would only ask the Minister of Justice, if he cannot see his way clear to allow this section to be voted upon, or at least to allow it to stand. It would be a step backward to withdraw the section, now that it has appeared in the Bill.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: I desire to add my protest also against the dropping of this clause. Nor am I satisfied altogether with the reasons given for the dropping of it. The fact that the two contending parties in respect to this legislation both object to it, would, under ordinary circumstances, lead one to believe that possibly, a very fair clause had been provided. I am not prepared to say, speaking for myself, that I would legislate more drastically than it is proposed to do by this clause. But, inasmuch as this is a clause which we have had under consideration. I simply desire to state that I am prepared to support it, and i 337
I protest against it being dropped. As the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) has stated, similar clauses exist in the statute-books of the provinces, not, perhaps going quite so far. But I do not think it can be urged that this goes too far and I hope it will be enacted by this parliament.


Mr. ROSS (Ontario).: I think it would be a very grave error for the Minister of Justice to allow this clause to drop. I am satisfied that the effect on the people who inaugurated the movement against the sale and manufacture of cigarettes would be rather injurious. It would have the tendency to keep them from all similar good work in future to give them no law at all. This parliament has done nothing in the direction indicated by the motion of the hon. member for Montreal, St. Lawrence ; and now, when we have another opportunity to pass legislation in connection with this matter, apparently it is to be withdrawn. I think that would not be right. We all know the hurtfulness to children and to growing boys, of the use of tobacco in the form of cigarettes. During the present session of this parliament, it has been shown that the smoking of cigarettes by boys is extremely injurious to them. Under such circumstances, it is right and proper that we should adopt such legislation as this. In my opinion the clause as it stands is better calculated to answer the purpose we have in view, than the proposal which was submitted to the House earlier in the session. Cigarettes are so easily made, that it is questionable whether you can possibly prohibit their use by law. It is very easy to buy the cigarette paper and the cigarette tobacco already cut, and consequently, boys can very) easily make their own cigarettes. Such being the case, cigarettes would be largely used by certain people who would make them themselves, and in this way, no doubt the revenue would be affected. However, I believe that the legislation contained in the clause now before us, would have a deterrent effect, and in that respect it is a move in the right direction.


Mr. WEIGHT.: I for one would be very sorry indeed to see this clause stricken out of the Bill. We all remember what a very large majority there was in favour of the prohibition of cigarettes, when the proposition was first submitted to this House, and if we cannot get all that we actually want in the matter of prohibitory legislation, we can perhaps get some legislation which will be beneficial. If this clause is going to be stricken out of the Bill, I suppose we cannot help it ; but next session we will have to begin over again, anl re-introduce the Bill which this session was ruled out of order because of some irregularity in the form of its introduction. I had occasion recently to speak to a number of people in my own town in reference to this cigarette evil, and my information is that the evil



is growing worse and "worse amongst the boys who attend our collegiate institute. Last week when I was in Toronto, the ladies of the Women's Christian Temperance Union came to me to talk about the nature of the legislation which they expected might be passed this session.
I explained to them the provisions of this Bill, and they stated that if such a Bill were passed it would be a step in the right direction, and, that as they could not get all they asked, this provision would perhaps be ample for the time being ; at all events they would be able to see how it would work in practice. I shall regret very much indeed if this clause be allowed to drop. If It is dropped, then we shall have to renew our efforts next session.


Mr. McEWEN.: I believe that this clause is in the right direction, and I join with the other hon. members in raising my voice against dropping it from the Bill. In fact, Sir, I think the provision in this clause is better than the provision in the original Bill, because it strikes at the root of the evil, and will provide a remedy.


Mr. KAULBACH.: I wish to add a word to what has already been said by hon. gentlemen, as to the evils which result from the use of cigarettes by boys under the age of eighteen. We have it on the authority of physicians, that the use of cigarettes by young boys is most injurious. These physicians, wlio are our very best guide in such a matter have expressed themselves in no unmeasured terms in regard to the matter. I believe that the use of tobacco in any form is injurious, but, when indulged in by young men it is peculiarly harmful, in that it leads to other ills, which in the course of time become uncontrollable. I appeal to the government not to withdraw this legislation, because I believe it to be a step in the right direction. If I had my way I would recommend that the age limit be placed at over eigh-een years, because if youths were prohibited from using cigarettes until they were twenty-one years, then when a young man attained his* majority he would be better able to judge for himself between right and wrong and he would no doubt feel -the more strongly that he was committing a very serious offence, should he break the law by smoking cigarettes. If we had such a law upon the statute-book, the community of any particular locality would no doubt be interested in enforcing that law for the sake of the good name of the place. Some few Sundays ago, on my way to church, I saw three or four youths who were not more than fourteen or fifteen years of age, smoking cigarettes on the street. I spoke to them, and pointed out to them the evil they were doing, and I took the cigarettes from them. One of them pouted a little at my action, but I felt satisfied that not only had I done an act of justice to the boys Mr. WRIGHT.
themselves, but that I had given a good example to others.


David Henderson: I regard this clause in the Bill we are now considering as an exact copy of the Ontario statute. We have had such a law in the province of Ontario for a number of years and I am not aware that any harm has resulted from its operation. I believe that that law has been beneficial, and I am quite sure that no one in the province of Ontario would desire to see it repealed. The hon. gentleman from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) said that the Ontario Act only extended to the age of sixteen years, but on reference I find that the age limit is there specified at eighteen years, just as in the clause under discussion. I trust that the Minister of Justice will allow the clause to stand as part of the Bill. Even if it be not the law in the other provinces, outside of Ontario, I am quite sure we will make no mistake if we extend the Act to the whole Dominion. I cannot understand how, by dropping this clause, the Minister of Justice will meet the wishes of the ladies to whom he has referred. As I understand it, these ladies requires more drastic legislation, and if the Minister of Justice cannot meet their wishes at present, I think it would be a very proper thing to allow the clause to stand, in order that the other provinces of the Dominion may reap from it the benefits which we are now enjoying in Ontario.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I wish to say to the Minister of Justice, that in view of the recent decision of the Privy Council on the Lord's Day Act, probably all similar provincial Acts may be dead, and therefore this clause should be passed in order that the country may have some substantial protection against the cigarette evil.


Bennett Rosamond: The weak point in this clause is the fact, that it does not go quite far enough. My hon. friend (Mr. Gour-ley) seems to think that this clause made it illegal for a lad to smoke a cigarette, but as a matter of fact the clause only provides that it is illegal to sell cigarettes to youths under the age specified in the clause. If this clause went a little further, and made it illegal for * boy under eighteen years old to be seen smoking cigarettes on the streets, or anywhere else, then more good would be accomplished. Such a provision would certainly have an educational effect. The Minister of Justice should not only retain this clause in the Bill, but he should make it still more stringent by providing that it would be illegal for a boy under a certain specified age to smoke cigarettes.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I endorse the view of my hon. friend (Mr. Rosamond!. I feel satisfied that if the law gave authority to any person who found a boy smoking cigarettes, to take him in charge and pass him over to the authorities, it would have a much more beneficial effect.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: That may be just exactly the way we will not get legislation-by wanting everything at one time. This legislation goes fairly far ; let us accept it. There are a hundred and one things we would like to see in operation, but we cannot have them, as they are unworkable. Ret us test one thing first ; that is the education people get in law, and then the other thing will come more easily. We cajnnot go this far without calling for something more.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would like to state the reasons why I came to the conclusion which I have just mentioned. There is considerable conflict of opinion in this country on the subject of tobacco legislation. There a re those who think that the manufacture and sale of tobacco ought to be prohibited absolutely. There are others who think that this question of prohibiting the use of tobacco by persons of a certain age is more a matter for parental control-a matter that ought to be regulated by the parents in each family. These are the two extremes. Between these two extremes there stand the moderate men, who think that this cigarette business has got to be a very serious matter-something that ought to be regulated by the state. 1 say regulated designedly, because I do not think we ought to go too far in the direction of state control over the conduct of children, or of adults either. But in respect to this particular matter, there are those moderate men who think that we ought to regulate so as to prevent what is, in the minds of some people, at all events, a nuisance. Hence the legislation that was introduced by my hon. friend from Montreal, and which went in the direction of prohibiting the sale and manufacture of tobacco. Those who are supposed to be anxious for that particular legislation are dissatisfied with the middle course which I have proposed. and which is embodied in the section now under consideration. There are others who wish to see this trade regulated, and who think this provision does not go in>
the right direction for that purpose. For instance, there are those who make representations to the effect that if this legislation passes, it will work gross injustice to those honest traders who merely desire, after all, to carry on an honest calling, and that it will have the effect of creating a gang of informers who will seek, by tempting children, to create trouble for those who would not otherwise be interfered with in carrying on their business. My idea was that this legislation, not going far enough to meet the wish of either party, we should drop it, with the view of having the whole matter re-considered, and bringing in other legislation at a future time. I think myself, after having heard the representations on both sides, that this section can be improved. I do not wish to do that hurriedly.
337J
I have given an earnest of my good intentions at all events ; on further consideration, I hope to be able to draft a clause which Will be free from the objections urged on both sides to the clause under consideration, which either goes too far or does not go far enough.


Mr.   BRAIN@: I wish to enter my objection to the withdrawal of this clause. My hon. friend from Halton has pointed out that it is a fac-simile of the clause in the Ontario law. I understand that that is very generally acceptable, only the law is not enforced in that province. I do not think the passage of this clause now would in any wise prevent further legislation with, reference to the sale and manufacture of cigarettes in this country. I understood this clause to be a compromise between the extreme views held on either side of the question. For myself, I wish to enter my objection to the withdrawal of it, and to say that I think it should pass at this session of parliament; and if the government, on consideration, think it advisable to bring in further legislation, it can afterwards be submitted for the consideration of the House.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is understood, of course, that I drop this clause for the purpose of re-introducing another clause, which I think will better meet the real necessities of the situation. I am not going to allow myself to be influenced too much by those who are interested in the sale of cigarettes, nor on the other hand, by those who think that because they do not smoke themselves, nobody else should do so. I wish to introduce legislation with reference to the use of cigarettes by children.


Mr.   CARVIN@: Will you introduce it this
session ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is my intention-before this Bill goes through committee.


Mr. GIRMOUR.: Would the minister be prepared to say now whether he would consider it an offence against the law for children to be found on the streets smoking cigai

ettes ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is a very proper suggestion, and it is in reality the idea I had in my mind as to how far it was proper to punish merely the man who sells under a mistaken notion as to the age of tine person who purchases, and allow the child to go scot-free. As the parents of this country appear exceedingly anxious to suppress the cigarette, I think we ought, if possible, to reach the parent through the child.


James Gilmour: I think tine Minister of Justice, in considering legislation for the future, should consider that policy. The

parents should lend a hand to help to carry out the law.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: I ought to say this, in addition, that I have received, I venture to say, over a hundred protests from the Women's Christian Temperance Onion all over Canada against this legislation, and I have not heard a voice raised in favour of it except what I have heard hene to-day.
Section 257 struck out.
Progress reported.



JUDGES OF PROVINCIAL COURTS- SALARIES.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Act respecting the Judges of Provincial Courts ; and to provide that the salary of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories shall he $5,000, and of five puisne judges of the said court, each, $4,000 per annum.-The Minister of Justice.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: This resolution is introduced for the purpose of providing for the appointment of two additional judges. The salaries are not changed. Very strong representations have been made by the bar to the effect that there are not sufficient judges at present in the territories. For the present we take power to appoint an additional one.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Why not send up some of the Ontario judges instead of sending them perambulating around the country on commissions ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is a valuable suggestion, which possibly may be considered when making the appointment.


Mr. MONK.: Has the hon. minister anything to show that the legal business before the courts has greatly increased.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It has increased enormously both civil and criminal. I know more perhaps about the criminal business, because it is under the direct control of the Department of Justice. The criminal business has increased over fifty per cent in the last two years.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Four years ago, I was living in the North-west and it was hard to get a judge to go on circuit, so that I can quite understand that the increase is called for.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: Does the hon. minister consider $5,000 sufficient salary for the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the North-west Territories ? Living there is much higher than the east and for a posi-Mr. GILMOUB.
tion of that kind you should have the ablest lawyers. I hardly think that any leading lawyer would give up his practice to accept the position.


Mr. BENNETT.: He will have no practice to give up.


John Dowsley Reid: Such men should not get the position. It should be given to the ablest lawyers. Five thousand dollars is hardly sufficient.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: There Is a great plenty of game there and any amount of beef and sheep and it ought to be quite easy to live upon $5,000 per year.
Resolution reported,
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
1. Resolved, that the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Ontario
shall be as follows :-
Per annum.
The Chief Justice of Ontario	$6,000
Pour Justices of Appeal, each	 5,000
The Chief Justice of the King's Bench.. 6,000 Two judges of the High Court of Justice,
King's bench division, each	 5,000
The Chancellor of Ontario	 6,000
Two judges of the High Court of Justice,
chancery division, each	 5,000
The Chief Justice of the Common Pleas 6,000 Two judges of the High Court of Justice,
common pleas division, each	 5,000
The Chief Justice of the Exchequer
division	 6,000
Two judges of the High Court of Justice,
Exchequer division, each	 5,000
2. Resolved, that if the Chief Justice of the
King's Bench, the Chancellor of Ontario, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, or the Chief Justice of the Exchequer Division, is appointed to the Court of Appeal, the Governor in Council may direct that he be paid a salary not less than that previously enjoyed by him as such chief justice or chancellor.-The Minister of Justice.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hoi).: Charles Fitzpatrick). This is introduced to bring our Dominion legislation into line with the Ontario legislation. By the Ontario Judicature Act, amended last June, it is provided that there shall be an Exchequer Division of the high court, which makes it necessary to provide for a chief justice and a puisne judge for the new division. The court of appeals is not affected by this resolution at all.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: I congratulate the legislature of Ontario in having found this means of increasing the salaries of the judges in that province. I hope that the legislature of the province of Quebec will take a leaf out of the Ontario book and pass a similar law and thus increase the very insufficient remuneration paid to our judges in Quebec. In that province there are two chief justices and one acting chief justice-the chief justice of the Court of Appeals, the chief justice of the superior court and the acting chief justice of the superior court, who

lives in Montreal, when the chief justice lives in Quebec, and vice versa. In Ontario, under the new Bill, there are five chief justices, each receiving a salary of $6,000. I find also in resolution number two a very good way of increasing the salaries of the judges, because it provides that if a chief justice of one of the divisions is appointed to the Court of Appeal, although under the law he should receive only $5,000, the same as the other puisne judges, he continues to receive $6,000. There are fourteen judges in Ontario, who receive a salary of not less than $5,000, and live who receive a salary of not less than $6,000. And there may be judges appointed to the Court of Appeal, who had been chief justices of the lower courts, and they will also receive $6,000. I would like again to call the attention of my hon. friend, as it has been often before, to the utter insufficiency of the salaries of the judges in Montreal. It is not because we who belong to the learned profession wish to become judges that we urge an increase in the salary, but because we believe that we are really doing a service to the country by bringing this question to the attention of the authorities time and again. I can quite understand that it is not the fault of my hon. friend if he has not been able this session to bring before the House a Bill increasing the salaries of-the judges in Toronto, in Montreal, and in Quebec. I would not advocate at the present time an increase in the salaries of the judges generally all through the Dominion. But if he consults anybody who knows anything about the cost of living in the city of Montreal, he will be told that the sum of $5,000 is absolutely inadequate for a man occupying the high social position that a judge should occupy in such a city as Montreal. All business men in the city of Montreal will tell my hon. friend that, not only those who are connected with the legal profession, but those who have anything to do in the business circles of that city. It seems to me extraordinary that a man having in his hands the administration of justice, a man who very often has to determine, not only upon the life and death of an individual, but upon his fortune to the extent, perhaps, of hundreds of thousands of dollars, should receive the paltry sum of five or six thousand dollars, while a man who is at the head of a financial institution, perhaps a small institution, receives a salary of $10,000, and while others who are at the head of great corporations receive salaries of from $25,000 to $50,000 a year. I may say that in Montreal the judges are precluded from accepting any civilities from anybody, or any of the amenities of social life, because they are absolutely unable to return them. As I said before, this question has occupied the attention of the House several times. I can understand that at this late date of the session it would be impossible to bring in a measure, what I
would call a measure of relief ; and I would again urge upon my hon. friend-he is a strong man in the government, he has a great deal of influence in the government and with the supporters of the government- and I would suggest to him that now is a good occasion to make a change, if not this session, at least next session-if we have a next session-I do not want the right hon. gentleman who leads the House to commit himself upon that question now ; but if we have another session of this parliament, I hope he will heed the views of the great majority of the people in the province of Quebec and of the Dominion at large, and bring in a measure by which the salaries of the judges will be increased to a figure somewhat adequate to the high functions they have to exercise, and the high social position which they occupy in this country.


Mr. BARKER.: I wish to call the minister's attention to what appears to me an . anomaly in the different salaries provided for in this resolution. The salaries of the Court of Appeal judges are the same in the resolution as those of the high court judges. Perhaps the minister will tell me if I am mistaken, but I think the judges of the high court have allowances that the Court of Appeal judges have not, circuit allowances and things of that kind. So that in fact, from what appears here, a judge of the high court does really receive a higher remuneration than a judge of the Court of Appeal. Now it strikes me as rather singular that a judge of the high court should receive a lesser remuneration than the judges of the Court of Appeal, who are the judges of the highest court in the province, and who decide appeals from the other courts ; yet they receive lesser pay, a lesser remuneration, at all events, than those over whom they rank. I would also like to point out to the minister that for the salaries mentioned here. $5,000 for a puisne judge and $6,000 for a chief justice, you cannot persuade the best men at the bar to take seats upon the bench. I think it is generally conceded throughout the province-it is a question that one does not like to discuss very fully, because it might appear to reflect upon those who have been appointed and are now sitting upon the bench-but there is no question, I think, that the government cannot obtain the services upon the bench of the best men at the Bar in Ontario, for the salaries that are mentioned here. I think that is a subject the government should take up and deal with, for it is notorious that the very best men cannot be obtained at present, and it should be possible at all times to put upon the bench of the province the very best material that the province affords.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am disposed to agree with my hon. friend that we cannot secure the best men at the Bar to

take seats upon the bench when they are paid such inadequate salaries. Of course I am speaking now as Minister of Justice, and cannot take a different position from that in the Bill, while speaking as a private member I would probably have something else to say. With respect to the judges of the Court of Appeal, my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) will bear in mind that the judges of the high court receive what is called circuit allowances when they go on circuit in different parts of the country, and receive thereby additional remuneration. My hon. friend will know better than I, but I understand that the judges of the Court of Appeal also go on circuit sometimes, and then they will be entitled to the same remuneration as is paid to the ordinary high court judge.


Samuel Barker: I think they do not hold circuit now, they did some years ago.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Circuit allowances are paid really to judges of the high court who go on circuit.


Mr. WILSON.: I would ask the Minister of Justice to explain the difference between the salaries of the judges mentioned here. For instance, we have county court judges in Ontario who get $2,400 a year and travelling expenses. I do not find in the other provinces judges who correspond with them. The salaries I think are higher in most of the other provinces. In Manitoba, the North-west Territories and British Columbia there are no travelling expenses allowed, and I presume those expenses are provided for otherwise. I would like the Minister of Justice to give us a general outline of the differences, and why they exist.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In the province of Quebec we have no county court judges at all, in consequence of the judicial system that was inaugurated before confederation. Under it all the judges were appointed as members of what we call there the superior court. The courts in our province are divided into the superior courts which are courts of original jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeal, to which appeals are taken from judgments of the superior courts. In Ontario you have a different system ; you have your high court judges, your judges of the Court of Appeal, and your county court judges, and that system,
I believe, exists in all the English speaking provinces. I am not quite sure that the system of county court judges, such as they have it in the English-speaking provinces, is not an advantage over the system we have in our province. I think if we were to change the system in our province and appoint county court judges, it would be an advantage. We have no power to do it here. But speaking as a member of the Bar of Quebec, I may say that I think if we were to reduce the number of high court judges and appoint county court judges, I Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
who would perform somewhat similar duties to those now performed by county court judges in Ontario, the system would be improved. Some years ago when I was a member of the local legislature, I had occasion to discuss a Bill of that sort introduced by the then Attorney General, and although we were on opposite sides of the House, I had to give my approval to the measure, because I thought that on the whole we had too many high court judges in Quebec. However, we have the system, we are not responsible for it, and all we can do is to conform to the requirements of the province in that respect. There is no remedy here, because the organization of the courts in that province is under the control of the provincial legislature. An hon. gentlemen near me suggests that our system costs less than that of Ontario ; I am sorry to say that I have to differ with him. As a matter of fact, in the province of Ontario the cost of the administration of justice is 12-320 cents per head ; in Quebec it is 13-24 cents per head, so we are somewhat more expensive. In Quebec it is to be expected that we should have more expense, because we have the dual language. Dealing with the particular question the hon. gentleman put a moment ago, I would say that county court judges are on the same footing as to salary and travelling expenses in all the provinces of the Dominion. County court judges in Ontario receive a salary of $2,400 and they get travelling expenses. The same thing applies in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and British Columbia. In the territories they have no county court judges.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does that scale apply to junior county court judges ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes. The junior county court judges begin at $2,000 and their salaries increase annually to $2,400.


Uriah Wilson: By the Auditor General's Report there does not seem to have been anything paid for travelling expenses in Manitoba. British Columbia or the Northwest Territories. That is what I was asking the hon. minister.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have not the figures for this year hut for the last year for which I have figures I can state the result to my hon. friend. In Ontario there was paid for travelling expenses of judges $15,038.26.


Uriah Wilson: That is in the Auditor General's Report What about the other provinces ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am going to give the hon. gentleman the statement for the other provinces. For Nova Scotia, the travelling expenses of judges amounted to $1,400; New Brunswick, $1,200; Prince

Edward Island, $584.94 ; Manitoba, $2,850.55 and British Columbia, $8,670.90. In respect to British Columbia and Manitoba, no distinction is made in salaries between the high court and county court judges and I cannot therefore give the amount in respect to each. In the North-west Territories the travelling expenses of judges amounted to $2,609.90.


Edward Cochrane: Is that the total amount for each province or is that the amount that each judge received ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In the province of Ontario the travelling allowance of high court judges is included in the circuit allowance. The circuit allowance for high court judges in Ontario amounted to $13,400 and the travel of county court judges amounted to $15,038.20. I omitted to say that in Nova Scotia the cost per capita is 11-52-100 cents.


Uriah Wilson: I would like to ask the hon. minister why the travelling expenses I have referred to do not appear in the Auditor General's Report ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Perhaps my hon. friend did not look in the proper quarter. I cannot give the information to my hon. friend because I did not prepare these figures. They were prepared for me by the accountant of the department and I will hand them to my hon. friend so that he can have them verified if necessary.


Uriah Wilson: If the hon. minister will turn to page M-15-16 of the Auditor General's Report he will find that there are no travelling expenses entered there.


William Humphrey Bennett: The allowance made by the province of Ontario of $1,000 to each judge who goes on circuit, would make up the $13,400 that the hon. Minister of Justice lias referred to.


Uriah Wilson: I am not talking about Ontario at all ; I am talking about the other provinces. If the Minister of Justice will turn up the Auditor General's Report at the pages I have referred to he will see that there is nothing in the report at those pages in reference to travelling expenses. They must have had travelling expenses and there must be some way of explaining the omission.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The amounts I stated are the amounts taken out of the accountant's books in the Department of Justice and the figures show the amounts actually paid out by us in respect to these different items.


Uriah Wilson: Will the lion. Minister of Justice get the explanation and give it to the House why these figures do not appear in the Auditor General's Report ? I think we have a right to that information. If the hon. Minister of Justice will turn up
page M-15-16 he will see that these tra-^ veiling expenses are not given.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If my hon. friend will look at page M-8 he will find the accounts for circuit travelling of judges authorized by Supply Bill.


William Humphrey Bennett: For which province ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Manitoba, Ontario, and on the preceding page, the North-west Territories.


Uriah Wilson: It is strange that part of it should appear in one place in the Auditor General's Report and that the statement for other places should be left out.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am afraid I would meet with a very cool reception if I were to offer any suggestions to the Auditor General as to the way he should make out his report.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I would like to ask the hon. minister whether there is a separate circuit allowance for judges in the province of Ontario going upon circuit irrespective of the amount they get for travelling expenses ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, the circuit allowance covers the travelling expenses.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: How much is it ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think about $1,000 a year.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Is that paid by the Dominion ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is under the Dominion statute.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: And in Quebec the travelling expenses for judges are $6 per day.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: While actually travelling.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: While actually travelling.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: That makes quite a difference between the two provinces.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The system is very different, in our province a judge who does his duty-but perhaps that is too harsh a term-'would have very little travelling expenses because he would live in his district and his travelling expenses would only include the cost of going on circuit within the limits of his district. But, in regard to our Court of Appeal I introduced an amendment to our statute in respect to the payment of travelling expenses to our judges on the Court of Appeal, who, I thought, ought to be paid at least the amount they receive. At all events they are

content with what they receive at the present time.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is it not a fact that in the province of Ontario the province pays to each judge who goes out on circuit $1,000 a year ? I am afraid we are getting the thing mixed. It may be that the Dominion allows each judge $1,000 extra for expenses, but I think there is $1,000 allowed by the province of Ontario to each judge and that is $1,000 that the hon. minister refers to.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is in addition to his circuit allowance paid by us to each judge the amount that is paid by the province of Ontario.


William Humphrey Bennett: Which is $1,000.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: And I understand that the $1,000 paid by the province of Ontario is applicable to all the courts there.


William Humphrey Bennett: No, only to the trial judges, only to those who go on circuit.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think the chief justice of the Couit of Appeal also gets it. However, my hon. friend will probably know more about it than I do. By our legislation, instead of paying travelling expenses, there is circuit allowances to judges of the high court but that does not apply to the Court of Appeal.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I understand the difference between the two provinces is this : In the province of Ontario every judge of the Superior Court, gets either $(>,000 or $5,000 a year, lie gets $1,000 from the provincial government and he gets $1,000 from this government which would make in the case of tile five chief justices $8,000 and in the case of each puisne judge, $7,000 each.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The chiefs get $7,000 in the province of Ontario as the result of the payment made by the province. They get $6,000 in addition to what the province gives them and the puisne judges gets $5,000. In addition to that instead of getting travelling, expenses they get a circuit allowance. I can tell my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) that I could mention judges in our own province who get more than that as a result of their travelling expenses.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: There are very few.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There are one or two who are very great friends of both of us.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: In Quebec there are three judges who gets $6,000 a vear and the other judges in the cities get $5,000 a year while the judges in the rural parts, I suppose about ten of them, get $4,000 a year each.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: With us ?


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: '


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Yes, except there are two. who get $3,500 a year, one for the district of Chicoutimi and Saguenay. There is really a great difference between the remuneration accorded to judges in Ontario from one source or another, and the remuneration which is accorded to the judges in the province of Quebec. It is true that when judges travel in the province of Quebec they get $6 a day, but this allowance, in a good many instances, is far from meet- -ing the requirements of the case. I know of some judges in Montreal who have to go on circuit in the counties of Soulanges and Vaudreuil, and it costs them certainly more than $6 a day to pay their travelling fai;es and hotel expenses.


Edward Cochrane: One of the reasons why judges in Ontario get more than judges in Quebec, is due to the fact that the local legislatures pay the Ontario judges $1,000 extra. If the judges are not paid enough in the province of Quebec, we have no objection to tl>e legislature giving them $1,000 more.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the Minister of Justice think that the second paragraph of this resolution is advisable? It grants to a chief justice promoted from the common pleas division to the Court of Appeals the same salary as he had before promotion. That would present a very great anomaly. You would have judges of very unequal salary among the puisne judges of the Court of Appeal, and one of these puisne judges might, in fact, have the same salary as the chief justice himself. I myself am against the principle of promoting judges from court to court. I believe that when thiey accept a very high position such as a seat on the bench, it should be upon the understanding -very rarely departed from-that they would remain in that position. It makes them more independent, and I think it gives to the public greater guarantee of their independence. But in case a chief justice of one of the superior courts should be promoted to a puisne judgeship in the Court of Appeals, he should abandon his claim to the salary of $6,000, and he should be put upon the same footing as the other puisne judges of the Court of Appeals. I cannot agree with what has been said, that the acting chief justice, for instance, at Montreal, and, the chief justice who sits in Quebec, should not receive a greater salary than the puisne judges of the Court of Appeals. They are all courts of high jurisdiction. and the chief justice of the lower court has a great deal more to do than tlie puisne judges of the Court of Appeals.
It is quite natural that, under these circumstances, the chief justice of the superior court should receive a larger salary, 'fhe point I have raised as to section 2 of this resolution should commend itself to the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice.


Tlie MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Subsection 2 of section 3 of tbe Act amended, is a distinct inducement which has been held out for a number of years to the chief justices of the different subdivisions of the High Court of Ontario, but I may say to my hon. friend that no chief justice has ever yet agreed to go to the Court of Appeal, notwithstanding that he might receive the additional salary. I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) in what he has said about the undesirability of promotion on the bench. I think the old English rule : once a puisne judge a puisne judge for ever, is a very good rule. Whien a man goes on the bench, it is not a bad thing for him to feel that he is like the man who enters that place that Haute speaks of ; and that he leaves all hope of preferment behind him. and all hope of reward, either directly or indirectly, from any source whatever. He should only hope for the satisfaction which comes to him from performing his duty. However, that is my personal view, and perhaps it is not necessary for me to express it. If my hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) looks at chapter 138, section 13, R.S.C., he will find that an Ontario judge, instead of getting a travelling allowance of $6 a day, is allowed $100 for each time he holds court on circuit.
At one o'clock. Committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I want to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice to a grievance which we have in Nova Scotia. We have not many grievances down there ; we are a very contented people ; but at the same time our judges have for many years felt that there was an Invidious distinction made between Ontario and Nova Scotia, and between Ontario and some of the other smaller provinces. I hold that there are no provinces in Canada as far as the administration of justice is concerned. Canada for judicial purposes is divided into territories called Nova Scotia, Ontario, &c. In these different territories those who exercise the highest judicial functions ought to be all treated alike. I think we put an impress of inferiority upon a judge who exercises the jurisdiction of the highest court of the country, by paying him a smaller salary than others who exercise the same jurisdiction, simply because he happens to exercise it in a smaller territory. Our judges have complained again and again of this invidious distinction. 1 claim that a judge who exercises the highest jurisdiction in his territory, no matter where that territory may be, ought to be treated in just the same way as any other judge who exercises the same jurisdiction in another part of the country. I desire to emphasize that, because it lias been the cause of complaint for many years. Another complaint in Nova Scotia is made on behalf of the county court judges. These
judges are very able men, who would discharge the functions of the Supreme Court with ability equal to that displayed by the Supreme Court judges ; and the idea of asking men of education and of high intellectual qualities to accept $2,400 a year and exercise high judicial functions is what cannot longer be put up with in Canada. As between the salaries of the Supreme Court judges in Nova Scotia and those of the county court judges, if only one or the other could be increased, I think we would all concur in saying that it should be the salaries of the county court judges. The $2,400 paid to the county court judges, even with the travelling expenses of $200 thrown in, is very much less than the $4,000 paid to the Supreme Court judges with their circuit allowances. We have Judge Morse in the county of Cumberland, a very able and distinguished man. He preferred to take the county court, because he had a large estate to look after, and did not care to go to Halifax. It is a shame to offer $2,400 for the ability which he brings to bear on his judicial duties. He is a man of great literary ability, and an able man in every department of life, as well as a lawyer and a judge. I have letters from several of our county court judges asking me to represent this matter to parliament. To offer these men so insignificant a sum as $2,400 is very like the outrage of offering members of parliament an indemnity of $1,500, which I regard as the supreme outrage of the country. One other point, to which I wish to draw attention is, that our county Court judges have had thrown upon them important functions under the County Court Judges Criminal Act. Some of these judges are only county court judges by name. They do not sit for one county merely ; they sit for a district composed of three or four counties. The province is divided into seven districts. For instance, the district in which I live includes the counties of King's. Hants, and Colchester. The judge for the district happens to live at the other end, Kentville, in the county of King's. When any person is thrown into jail in the county of Colchester, the sheriff notifies the judge, and he is compelled to come and hold court. For that he receives no travelling expenses or additional salary. His travelling fees are entirely in connection with the civil branch of the court, which is held only twice a year in my county.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think my hon. friend will remember that the county court judge gets $200 for travelling expenses.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: That is for the civil end of the court. At any rate, the petty salary of $2,400, with the small travelling fees included, is utterly inadequate remuneration for a judge. All of our judges have protested, and have written to us asking us to bring the matter before parliament. I had

a letter from one of the judges the other day, saying that he did not wish to complain, but that to be called away to travel over two counties once a week or once a fortnight, and to be compelled to pay his own expenses, was unendurable. A judge-may have to hold ten or twenty of these courts in the course of a year. Therefore, 1 hope the Minister of Justice will give these judges an addition of $600 or $1,000 to their salaries. Nothing would be more fair or just.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I regret -that the minister did not go further, for while he is providing an increase of salary for the judges of the Supreme Court of judicature in Ontario, iirmy opinion the county court judges are as deserving of an increase of salary as the high court judges. It has been the subject of general complaiut for many years that the county court judges have been very poorly paid. Representations have been made to the Department of Justice more than once, with the object of having some readjustment made in accordance with the requirements of the situation. It is an undeniable fact that the cost of living has increased in late years, but for many years there has been no increase in the salaries of the judges. While the earning powers of everybody else have increased, the earning powers of the judges have remained the same as before, though their expenses have increased like the expenses of other people. I know that many of the judges find it difficult to make both ends meet, and to -maintain that respectability which judges should maintain. X do not know why this government is so reluctant to take this matter up and deal with it. Several times we have had intimations that they intended to do so. The Minister of Justice is dealing with the salaries of a few of the judges ; but why not go on and deal with them all-the county court judges as well as the high court judges ? It seems to me that no one could be selected better qualified to do this than the present Minister of Justice, because he seems to have the courage of his convictions ; and when he makes up his mind to do anything, he goes on and does it. Therefore, I see no reason why he should not take up the whole matter, and increase the salaries of the judges all along the line.


William Humphrey Bennett: When legislation was introduced in the Ontario legislature last session to provide for the appointment of two more judges, it was very fiercely opposed, as it deserved to be, by the opposition in that House, and particularly by Mr. J. J. Foy, whose respectability and attainments in the legal profession give weight to his opinion. In Ontario we have ten judges who go on circuit-four in the chancery division, three on the King's Bench, and three in Common Pleas. Of these ten judges, four were on leave of absence a


Seymour Eugene Gourley: good part of the time and out of the country, so that practically all the work was done by six.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Only three were absent.


William Humphrey Bennett: One would imagine from the travelling expenses of some of them, that they must have been travelling all the time. I think there were four, but in any case three were absent the best part of the year. Where therefore is the necessity of appointing two more ? This government is not to blame for the legislation passed by Ontario, but so long as we keep on increasing the number of Superior Court judges, so long will that increase be a bar to the increase of the judges salaries in that province. Under this arrangement, one of the judges is to be withdrawn from the Court of Chancery and two more added to make up the so-called Exchequer Division. The result will be that while six, or, at the most, seven judges did the work last year, you are going to add two more, and as some of these who were absent last year were unfortunately either removed by death or are going to resign, the work which last year was done by seven last year will in future be done by twelve. The people of Ontario understand what the duties of the Supreme Court judges are. Year after year, in a large county like Simcoe, jurors were summoned and came twice a year at great expense to the county, but as there was not a single case for trial by jury they were not required. That got to be such an abuse that a Bill was introduced by Mr. Hoyles which practically does away with jury, by providing that notice shall be published some time before the court opens, if there be no criminal case that will require the intervention of a jury. In my opinion, the salaries of the Supreme Court judges should he increased. Under this Bill $0,000 are allowed them. Under an Ontario statute mother $1,000 is allowed them-and then there seems to be an allowance of $1,000 a year to each one for travelling expenses. BjUti a reference to the Auditor General's Report will show that while some of the judges of the Superior Court spent only $1,000 on travelling others were paid $2,000 and $1,700 and $1,400 and $1,500 and so on. Assuming that a judge is assigned to Toronto and another one to Brampton-the latter is an old county where the court rarely sits a day or two-one would think that a very small amount would cover the travelling expenses. There are besides local sessions held at Ottawa and London, in connection with which there would be some travelling expenses. What the public would like would be to have this allowance for travelling expenses done away with altogether and the number of trial judges reduced to nine, giving the Chief Justice $10,000 and the puisne judges about $8,000 per year. In the Auditor General's Report, we find one gentleman drawing $2,000 in

expenses, in addition to his regular salary as a judge. It is to he regretted that the Ontario legislature saw fit to appoint this extra number of judges.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Two.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who pays them 7
Mr. BENNETT The federal government must make the necessary financial provision. Once they are appointed by the local legislature, the federal government supplies the sinews of'war. I know that there are gentlemen on the bench who could easily earn $10,000 per year at their profession-men of very eminent standing-and if you are going to draw on the bar for extra new judges, you will not, unless you increase the salaries, have as good a class of men on the benches as you have had in the past. As regards the county court judges I disagree with the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). I believe that they should be paid a .fair salary, but it is notorious in Ontario that in some counties, where there are a junior and a senior judge, there are practically no cases to be tried all the year around. Litigation is not as extensive in Ontario as it was some years ago. I can recall, when I was a student at law, seeing the assizes court last in Simcoe forty days, whereas now it is through in a week, and I think that that statement applies to Ontario all through. There is less work. True there has been a certain amount of congestion in the appeal courts of Ontario, but this does not help the appeal courts at all. We are simply appointing two new judges to go on circuit. I regret that the province of Ontario has introduced legislation appointing new judges; but as it has been introduced, this House has only one thing to do and that 'is to fix the salaries.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I might say to my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule) that this does not propose an increase in the salaries of the Ontario judges. My hon. friend (Mr. Bennett), in mentioning the congested condition of the Court of Appeals, gave a reason for this Bill. The result of this amendment will be to provide for two divisions of the court of appeals.


William Humphrey Bennett: Are we to understand that the three judges composing the Exchequer Court will sit in review on cases taken to appeal from the King's Bench or the common pleas or the old chancery division ? Or are they not to be circuit judges ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Every circuit higb court judge may be called on to sit in appeal. As I am not familiar with the procedure in the province of Ontario, I think it will be safer for me to read the section of the Act, section 5 :
Section 12 of the Judicature Act is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor: -
12. (1) In case from pressure of business, or
other cause it shall at any time seem expedient to the Lieutenant Governor in Council or to the judges of the Court of Appeal or the judges of the Supreme Court of a majority of them (of which majority two judges of the Court of Appeal including the chief justice, unless absent on leave, shall form part) the Court of Appeal may sit in two divisions either at the same time or at different times.
Then, it proceeds to make provision for the selection of judges to sit in two divisions of the Court of Appeal. So, the appointment of these judges will enable.the Court of Appeal to sit in two divisions ; and, in that way, besides doing ordinary circuit work if called upon, they may sit as a division of the Court of Appeal.


William Humphrey Bennett: There are five judges in the Court of Appeal, and if you add three, as undier this proposal, that would make eight; then, if you make two divisions, they could not be an appellate court, there being an even number of judges.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is not the way it is intended to proceed. These judges will not have exclusively the right to sit in appeal. Any of the judges of the High Court will have the right to sit in appeal. There will be practically twelve judges who will have that right. As I understand the system in Ontario, four judges form a quorum in the Court of Appeal. So, when the court sits in two divisions, having eight judges they will have the necessary number to form a quorum in both of the two divisions. My hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) speaks of the travelling allowances. I cannot understand very well how it is that the sums which my hon. friend mentioned have been paid to these officers, because the statute makes provision that, in the province of Ontario, each of the judges of the high court shall be paid $100 for travelling allowance for each time he holds court in any county except the county of York and the city of Toronto. So, the only explanation of the very large amount that appears in the Auditor General's report as having been paid to the judges would be that, possibly, the judges sat in connection with election trials.


William Humphrey Bennett: They get paid $200 a piece for each election trial.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, they would receive that in addition. Except for this, all judges receive the same for all courts-$100 for each sitting.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Who pays them for the weekly courts 7


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In addition to that there is the weekly court, which, I believe, they hold exclusively in Ottawa and London. They are paid $6 a day each for travelling expenses in connection with these courts.


Dir. BLAIN.: I have been listening with some considerable interest to the discussion

in connection with the increase of superior court judges' salaries. I hare heard gentlemen here say that those appointed to the Supreme Court judgeships are gentlemen who are earning very large salaries. I am not in a position to speak for other portions of the Dominion, but I know a little about the state of affairs in the province of Ontario; and the number of lawyers in Ontario who are earning $10,000 or more a year are very few. There is no use in men standing up in this House and saying that they can ; the fact remains that they cannot and do not earn such large salaries in the province of Ontario. When hou. gentlemen stand up In this House and say that the people of the province of Ontario are in favour of increasing the superior court judges' salaries, I beg to differ; and I say that, in my opinion, the people of the province of Ontario particularly are opposed to any such increase of salary. Looking over the record, 1 find that once, if not twice, since confederation, and notably in the year 1873, there was a Bill presented in this House, by which the county court judges' salaries were decreased, while the superior court judges' salaries were increased. I am of opinion that if there should be any increase of salaries given by this parliament to any judges of this country, that increase should be given to the county court judges. I am firmly convinced that the superior court judges of this country are well paid. And I repeat that it is all very well for hon. members to stand up in this House and state the contrary. I know that there is a sort of affiliation between members of the bar on this subject. I understand that well, and the bar should remember that the public understand it very well, to. The people know how much importance to attach to the general discussion that goes on between members of the bar in this House and outside of the House-a sort of mutual admiration society, as my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) says. Take the average man in every calling in this eouu-try at the present moment, and, I have no hesitation in saying-and I want to speak fairly, because I think the judges should be well paid-that there is no class of people in this country better paid than are the superior court judges at the present time. It is all very well to point to some gentleman occupying a high position in a railway company as receiving $25,000 or $50.000 a year. That is all very true; but his salary has to be paid by one corporation. We are dealing with the general public, and with the public's money. For my part. I think it is about time, notwithstanding the general prosperity of this country, the surpluses and all that, that parliament should come to the conclusion that a time will come in the history of this country when we shall have dissatisfaction on this subject and the surpluses will disappear, and when somebody will be asking that


Richard Blain: these salaries be reduced. I think it is time that members of parliament should discuss this question in a way that would meet the wishes of the electors of this country. I want to say for myself, I am very much opposed to an increase in the superior court judges' salaries. If the salaries of any judges are to be increased, the increase should go to the judges whose salaries were decreased in 1873, when the Act to which I have refererd was passed in this House.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not happen to belong to the legal profession, but I must say that my attention has been drawn, again and again, to the salaries paid to the junior judges of the county court of the county of York. If men are paid at all, they should be paid according to the work they do. I have drawn the attention of the hon. gentleman who is now Minister of Justice, as I drew the attention of his predecessor, to the salaries paid to these junior judges to Whom I have referred. 1 think that if a re-arrangement of salaries is to take place, especially in the province of Ontario, the junior judges of the county of York, because of the immense volume of work that they do year after year in that county, are entitled to consideration. With regard to the salaries paid to superior court judges, I think that it is in the public Interest that the men who occupy distinguished, honourable and responsible positions sliouldi be men above reproach, and should be paid adequate salaries. That is what should be aimed at. You may have too many judges, but those who occupy these distinguished positions should be paid ample salaries. I think it is not to the welfare of the commonwealth that the judges should be obliged, as they are sometimes, to supplement their salaries by going on boards of different mercantile institutions or acting on commissions. I would support any reasonable increase of the salaries of judges in the province of Ontario and, of the Dominion, provided I am assured that we have not more judges than are necessary to do the work within a reasonable time. If it is germane to the discussion, may I ask the Minister of Justice if an amendment has been made concerning the salaries of the junior judges of the county of York? I think it is fair to say that it is impossible for those gentlemen to live and maintain the position they should maintain, in the city of Toronto, on the salaries they receive. They are paid, I believe $2,000


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: They have the distinct advantage over other judges that, from the time they are appointed, they are paid $2,400.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) knows that the cost of living in Toronto has substantially increased in the last few years, and the business these gentlemen are called upon to discharge lias very substantially increased.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Inasmuch as I entirely dissent from the way in which the hon. member for Peel has read public opinion in the province of Ontario, I feel it my duty to speak, notwithstanding that I belong to the ' affiliation ' which the hon. gentleman alleges, exists at the bar. However, it is pleasing to know that the feeling of the bar on both sides of the House and of a number of the laymen, is a unit on this question. I think that if you polled a vote in the province of Ontario the conclusion come to would be that the judges of the province are not paid sufficiently.


Richard Blain: Not a bit .of it.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: 1 may be wrong, but I, think so. At all events, I am not afraid to say, and I represent a rural constituency, that the salaries now paid to judges, and which were fixed some twenty-five years ago, are no longer sufficient. They were then put in a position where they could live in a manner befitting the dignity of their position ; that is no longer the case. It is ridiculous for any hon. gentleman to say that judges with salaries of $5,000 or $6,000 a year, living in Montreal, or Toronto, or Halifax, or Winnipeg, can maintain that social position that a judge ought to maintain, because they cannot. The price of living, it is admitted, has increased by 30 or 40 per cent. Now if that be so, is it not in the interest of every citizen of Canada that the judiciary should be placed in the financial position which they occupied originally when these salaries were fixed ? It is in the public interest that men who are appointed to the bench should be placed in a position where they will not be beholden to any one, where they will be perfectly independent, where they will not have to look elsewhere to obtain that monetary assistance which will enable them to maintain the dignity of their position. Now, unless you put them in that position, I would almost go as far as to say that it is a menace to justice, because you cannot obtain men who will be in that independent position that the judiciary of this country should occupy, unless they are made absolutely independent from a monetary standpoint. Now, if this increase was made it would be a small tax upon the rate-payers of this country as compared with the taxes they are called upon to pay in subsidizing the large enterprises which we are subsidizing every session of parliament. As I have already said, when the salaries were fixed originally twenty-five years ago, $5,000 or $6,000 were considered very large salaries according to the incomes then earned by leaders of the bar. It was a fair income, and in fact one that any leader of the bar at that time would have been glad to accept. Now, notwithstanding what the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) said, I think that salary is not one quarter of the sums that leaders of the bar in the various
provinces are able to earn to-day. It must be remembered that these gentlemen have to decide cases of enormous importance, involving hundreds of thousands of dollars, yes, millions of dollars ; and how can men decide such large causes in an independent way unless they are assured of an independent means of living? It is a well known fact that at the present time you cannot get the leaders of the bar in either Ontario or Quebec to accept judicial positions. That is not so in England, because there they are always able to get the best talent for the bench, it is the ultimate goal of every leader of the bar in England, because they "are paid such salaries as enable them to accept that position and to maintain the dignity of the judiciary. But in this country, I regret to say, you have not been able, for the past ten years, to get the leaders of the bar, at least in the two great provinces I have mentioned, to accept judicial positions. That is a sweeping statement, I may be told. Doubtless we have isolated instances of leading members of the bar who have accepted judicial positions. But in the majority of instances, if a position is offered upon the Supreme Court of Canada, or upon the Supreme Court of either of the provinces, it is refused, or rather'the Intimation is given that if the position was offered it would not be accepted. I know that to be a fact, and I do not think that the citizens of this country desire that state of things should continue. I think it behooves us as members of this House to see that the members of the judiciary throughout the Dominion of Canada are placed in an independent position, where they will be able to maintain the dignity which befits gentlemen occupying that high position, where they have to try causes involving hundreds of thousands, and millions of dollars, as well os the liberty and the life of individuals.


Richard Blain: The committee need not ask to what profession my hon. friend belongs.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: That is a small criticism.


Richard Blain: I am not discussing this question from a small standpoint at all. I am just as liberal in my views as my hon. friend, who lives in the city of Toronto and represents a rural constituency.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: That is a small criticism too.


Richard Blain: I could easily make a personal reference if I wished, and if my hon. friend is not more careful, I will do so.
I think I know something about the feelings of the electors, particularly in the province of Ontario, as well as my hon. friend does ; and when he stands up here and says that the cost of living has increased from 30 to 40 per cent over what it was twenty-five years ago, I beg to differ with the hon.

gentleman. I desire to say, Mr. Chairman, that there is no article of living that enters into the ordinary household of this country but what can be bought cheaper to-day than at any time during the last twenty-live years. My hon. friend laughs-it is all very well to try to mislead the people, but the facts remain the same. There is not a man at the bar who cannot buy his clothing cheaper than he could twenty-five years ago ; there is not a man at the bar who cannot buy his boots and shoes cheaper than he could twenty-five years ago; there is not an article on the hoh. gentleman's table to-day that he cannot buy cheaper than he could twenty-five years ago. The only exception to the rule is in the case of house rent, which, in the province of Ontario, is greater than it was twenty-five years ago. Would the hon. gentleman pretend to tell his electors that is not the case ? The electors of this country understand that subject well. The difficulty, Mr. Chairman, is, I think, that some of these gentlemen on the bench have gone into an advanced system of living, they want to live in a style above that of other people who help pay the taxes.
I know as much about this as the hon. member for North Simcoe ; and I say that the mem at the bar in the city of Toronto who are earning $10,000 a. year and more, are very few. Take the smaller cities of Ontario, take Hamilton, London and Brantford, and you can apply the same remark to the smaller towns and villages where there are many distinguished lawyers who are earning salaries less than those proposed to be given to the judges. I come from a town myself where we have lawyers that would take a high position on the bench anywhere in this country, and I know what they are earning in that county, and my hon. friend knows it too. I say that there are splendid lawyers all over the province of Ontario, in every city and town, that are not earning one half of $8,000 in their profession, and yet they are men who would adorn the bench of this country. Have we come to this in Canada that judges will only dole out justice according to the amount of salary they receive ? Are we to understand that because the judges are not well paid, in the opinion of these hon. gentlemen, they are not now giving the people justice on the bench ? Is that the position? I do not understand that to be the position myself. I have a high regard for the judges of this country, and I do not wish to say anything disrespectful of that honourable body ; but I say that it is time that the members of the profession both in this House and out of it, should understand that the salaries of other gentlemen who are working just as hard, and who have as much ability, are not advancing at the same ratio that this Bill proposes to advance the salaries of the judges of the superior* court. I would challenge my hon. friend to go into his county, let him go be-Mr. BLAXN.
fore his electors in the next election, and say that he is in favour of increasing the salaries of the superior court judges, and let him look out for the electors of that county, because they know as much about this matter as the hon. gentleman himself.
1 do not wish to make any personal references at all, and will not. I am talking from a broad standpoint, and I say that I can find men in this House and out of this House who were occupying positions just as responsible, who require just as much ability to discharge their duties as the ability that is required to discharge the duties of the superior court bench, and who receive half the salaries that are paid to the judges. The time has arrived in the history of this province when the lawyers in the different towns and cities earn less than they earned fifteen years ago. There is no use pretending to say that people are being offered these judgeships and that they are refusing them. We understand that very well. The public are not misled by statements of that sort.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Does the hon. gentleman refute the statement that several lawyers have recently been offered positions on the Supreme Court bench of several provinces and have refused them V


Richard Blain: 
Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).: Mr. Chairman, I feel that I ought to say a word about this question. I am a layman, and it is the laymen who will have to pay the tax imposed by the increase in the salaries of the judges. Therefore, the layman should be consulted. The argument against the contention of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) is that when a judgeship becomes vacant in any of the counties there is no lack of applicants to fill the position. I was told a few moments ago by a friend that he knew where they were tumbling over each other to get the job in his county. If that is so, the hon. minister need not have any trouble about getting men to fill these positions. I have some regard for the taxpayer as well as the judges. My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) has illustrated his case very well. He says that the cost of living nowadays is not very much higher than it was twenty years ago. I know that to be the fact. Judges need not wish to occupy a higher plane than the rest of the people. They wish to be independent. I do not think the hon. Minister of Justice will find it necessary to increase the salaries of judges in order to induce members of the legal profession to accept positions on the bench.


Uriah Wilson: I remember very distinctly that during the first parliament in which I had the honour of being the representative of Lennox, when the late Rt. Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald was leader of the House and, of course, leader of the government, he introduced a Bill to raise the judges' salaries. It kicked up quite a hubub all over the House, and when we had a caucus over it about thirty of the back bench members stood out against it, with the result that we heard nothing more of the Bill.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: You heard something of it when Sir John Thompson was Prime Minister.


Uriah Wilson: Sir John Thompson did not succeed either, and I do not think the present government will succeed, and if they do they will hear from the country. We have a vacancy in Lennox, at least we had- it may be filled now. The county judgeship is vacant, and we had all the lawyers on one side of politics down here looking after it. and all the other fellows on the other side would have been glad to get it. The salary is $2,400 a year and travelling expenses. My hon. friend from North Sim-coe (Mr. McCarthy) says you cannot get the leaders of the bar to take these positions. I do not think that the leaders of the bar could get them if the salaries were higher. I do not accuse these hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches of being much worse than their predecessors in this regard, but we all know that the men who have the influence get these positions, and sometimes they are not overly well qualified.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Not always.


Uriah Wilson: I said generally. I did not say always. If my hon. friend from North Simcoe will go up to the county of Lennox and take the ground which he has taken here to-day I should he very glad, or if he will get the man who opposes me, if I have the honour to be the candidate in the next election, to take that ground, it will be an easy job for me. The people of this country believe that the judges are being well enough paid for all they have to do, and that they are being well enough paid for all they will have to do for a long time to come. I think there is another feeling prevalent in the country, and that is that we have too many of them. We all know that in the smaller centres, and I presume that in the cities it is quite as bad, from year to year the profession is getting more and more crowded, that lawyers are making less and less money, and that they are glad to resort to things that are sometimes not in keeping with the dignity of their profession to make a livelihood. Many men of good ability have to do these things. I am well acquainted with the lawyers of my town, and I regard them as a very respectable lot of men, but I do not know a single one of them who would not be glad to get a county judgeship at the present salary.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I agree with what the hon. member for Lennox (Mr. Wilson) and the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) have said. I do not approve of a present increase in the number of judges in Ontario. I think the judges who are there are capable of doing the work, but I did not think they are paid properly. I think they are very much underpaid. Let me ask these hon. gentlemen if the position of a chief justice or of any puisne judge is not as responsible as that of a railway commissioner under the Railway Commission Bill ?


Uriah Wilson: It may be as responsible in many ways as the position of manager of the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Grand Trunk Railway, but one would not expect to pay the judges as large salaries.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: No, because the standard has been kept down. There are more of them to be appointed, but you do not pay judges one-tenth of the amount that you pay the managers of the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Grand Trunk Railway, and the responsibility is almost as great. But take the gentlemen whom at this Session we thought ought to be put in the position of railway commissioners, and whose position is no more responsible than that of a judge, if it is as responsible. One of the responsibilities that they are relieved of is the trying of a man for his life. That is the greatest of responsibilities ; yet, this House has voted that the chairman of this commission should receive $10,000 and that the other commissioner should receive $8,000. What was the argument which led to

that salary being fixed at $10,000 ? It was- notwithstanding what the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) says-that the cost of living generally has advanced in the larger cities.
Mr. CASGRA1N. Hear, hear.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: So far as rent is concerned there is no doubt about that. The incidental expenses have Increased by 30 or 40 per cent, the cost of living to gentleman occupying the position of high court judges.


Richard Blain: Would my hon. friend allow me to ask him a question ? Would he be good enough just to tell us the items of the increased cost of living in the city of Toronto ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The difficulty in deal-' ing with that is, that one has to enter into the personal affairs of judges to a certain extent. I can tell my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) that when the first chief justice of Ontario was appointed, on the salary he received he was able to keep two or three servants, and he was able to keep horses and a man servant. If you compare the price of labour twenty-five years ago with what it is now, and the cost of street car fares, and telephones, and a hundred and one other things


Richard Blain: Might I ask the hon. gentleman, if they pay street car fares, do they have to keep horses as well ; do they ride in both at the same time ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Certainly they do not ride in both at the same time, but if you live at a certain distance out of town you have to get into town, and street cars must be used if a horse is not available. The more one argues this with my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) the more it is apparent that the hon. gentleman does not understand the basis on which the argument is made as to the 30 or 40 per cent increase in the cost of living. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) would disagree with me on that, and I am quite content to agree to disagree with him. This same argument which enables you to fix a salary for a railway commissioner, should apply when you are fixing the salary of a high court judge. I say in all sincerity, that I think any one judge of our high court has a more responsible position to fill than the railway commissioner, and if that be so, then the salaries of our high court judges should be commensurate With that responsibility.


Mr. BRODER.: It is rather amusing to hear a lawyer of the standing of the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCarthy) talk as he does about the judges. He talks about the responsibility of the position of a judge, and compares it with that of a railway commissioner, but it is a different kind of responsibility. If you take all the judges and lawyers in Canada to-day, you perhaps would not get a good railway commissioner out of the
Mr. McCarthy.
whole lot of them. There are only two or three men perhaps on the continent who could manage a great railway, but there are a great many lawyers who think they could make judges.


An hon. MEMBER.: No.


Andrew Broder: Yes, it is all very well, to talk about the responsibility of judges ; but what do judges do ? You take a six thousand dollar judge who has a good many perquisites besides, and you have to get twelve men at two dollars each to see that justice is done. And then you talk about the responsibility of the judges. I would rather have those twelve men dispense justice, than any judge you have on the bench-There is never a man who wants fair-play who does not want that twelve common sense hard-headed men should try him instead of a judge. When the trial is going on you have all the lawyers, and all the paraphernalia, and you have the judge ; but a comon sense community of average ability will have justice meted out by twelve men before the court can arrive at a verdict. A judge is not supposed to be valued by a mere money value. Is there nothing in the position outside the money a judge gets ?
I thought a man should be guided in such a high position, not by the pay he draws, but by a sense of honour and respect for the position in which he is placed by the country. There should be a fine sense of duty guiding a judge, far and above any money consideration. Why, Sir, if the government would elevate men to the bench who are as big as the salary, we should have better judges than we have to-day. We have judges on the bench to-day who could not earn six thousand dollars a year In the practice of their profession. It is said that the expense of living has increased. Let the judges economize as the rest of us poor fellows have to do and they will find their salaries sufficient. You cannot make a seven yards suit out of a six yards piece of cloth ; you must cut your suit according to your cloth. Let the judges do that once in a while and they will have a little sympathy with the poor accused who has to fight many a battle that the judge has not to fight. It would be well if a little more of the ordinary experience of life came to our judges, so that they would be better able to deal out justice to the commonalty. If they had a little experience of that kind, justice would be tempered with mercy. It is all very well to say that judges must have three servants, but what has that to do with the rendering of justice? We are told that a judge has got to have a carriage and two or three servants to see that he gets along the street without being injured. What has that to do with the carriage of justice in this country ? Street car justice-well, I do not want any justice on wheels so far as I am concerned. Why, the country is chock full of lawyers:

there are more lawyers to-day in this province than there are briefs, and it is time that the lawyers were put to some honest work to make a living. The judges in this country have got to suffer some inconvenience. 1 am quite aware that the position has a dignity about it that the judges ought to be in a position to maintain, but it is not necessary that they should roll in wealth to do it. A judge may be a man of a high sense of honour, and he may have the fullest confidence of the community without having a large bank account. The largest bank account is not necessarily followed by the highest honour ; not by any means. I notice that men who are prospective judges are very anxious to have the salaries placed at a high figure. I suppose that the members of this House of Commons are very sorry their predecessors did not raise the indemnity away up to 82,500 a year. In the same way these prospective judges are anxious to have the salaries raised so that there will be no trouble when they get to the bench. There are hard worked judges in every county, travelling about on their circuits, who are perhaps underpaid to a greater extent than are these gentlemen mentioned in this Bill. They ought to have some consideration. By the plan adopted in this province-and I might as well talk about it as a layman-you cannot do any law business unless you have an agent up in Toronto. The whole legal business of the province virtually centres in Toronto, and you have to get a fellow up there to go to the hall, to get an order to do so and so, and so and so. That has been going on in this province for years, and the milch cow has gone dry on the poor fellow out in the county. The whole business is being done in Toronto, and they want to measure up the salaries the judges shall get by the incomes received by some prominent, special men the number of whom you can count on your fingers. I am aware that every man in the profession, when he gets old. has to suffer, the experience of younger and more vigorous men passing him in the race, and perhaps the profession to which I belong is the only one in which that experience does not occur because you can go out into the fields and view four fields and your flocks, and feel that they are your own. Let the judges do as other people do ; let them live within a reasonable income, and they will get along. If there is anything that the judges of the courts and the lawyers should do, it is to teach the people true economy. If they did that, there would be fewer criminals in this country. But they teach them the other view of life, which is a distorted view, and hence the crime. I do not know that there are worse abettors of crime in the whole country, when you come to look at it. I think we should start right here, and do like the men who said that the Lord would send them a preacher, if he was 338
only religious, they would pay him a salary to make him humble.


Mr. PORTER.: A few weeks ago, when this resolution was introduced to the House, I ventured briefly to express my views on the question, and since then I have given the matter considerable thought, and have consulted not only with judges and gentlemen in the profession, but also to a greater or less extent with the people generally. I have found no reason, since I spoke on this question last, to alter my opinion as then expressed. I do not intend now to repeat what was said then, or to advance any argument in favour of increasing the salaries of the superior court judges ; nor do I intend to argue that their salaries are now large enough. But I want to take occasion to point out that the principle upon which the county court judges have been dealt with is by comparison, altogether unfair to them. As my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) has already pointed out, at the time of confederation the salaries of the superior and county court judges were fixed, and the duties of their offices assigned. The duties then imposed on the superior court judges have not since been increased. They have the same duties to perform to-day that they had to perform then, with this qualification, that the population and the wealth of the country have increased, and consequently there is more business for them to perform. But instead of their duties having been increased, their duties have been very largely decreased. At the time of confederation all the chamber business in the superior courts, such as motions for injunctions, mandamus, &c., had all to be performed by the judges of the high court in Toronto, and lawyers In the country had to send their business to Toronto to be performed by the judges there at the expense of their clients. The legislature in its wisdom has seen fit to alter that state of affairs by providing that chamber motions, and all interlocutory applications, in cases brought in a particular county, may now be taken before the county court judge of that county, who has been made a local judge of the high court. I think I am within the mark when I say that from thirty to forty per cent of this kind of work, which was formerly performed by the high court judges is now performed by the county court judges in the various counties. Now, as my hon. friend from Peel has pointed out, the salaries of the high court judges have been increased twice since confederation. By the Act of 1873, $1,000 was added to their salaries. bringing them up to $5,000 for puisne judges and $0,000 for chief justices. The Ontario legislature supplemented these salaries by paying them $1,000 more. So that their salaries have been increased twice since confederation. Their travelling, allowances have also been increased. They



are allowed $100 for holding each assize court, though it is a notorious fact that In most counties iu Ontario the judges open the court, dispose of the business and close the court iu two days, so that their actual expenses would perhaps be not more than $25. I am not saying that this is wrong, or that they are paid too much. But I want to call attention to the manner in which the county court judges have been [DOT]dealt with. At the time of confederation the salaries of the county court judges were fixed at $2,000, and they have remained at that figure until the Act was introduced in this parliament to readjust the salaries of the judges in 1813. The reason given in that Act for readjusting the salaries, as it was then put, is thus stated in the preamble of the Act : ' In view of the increased cost of living consequent on the diminished value of money, &c.,' the Act provided for increasing the salaries of the high court judges by $1,000. By that very same Act the salaries of the county court judges, to whom that statement applied just as much as it did to the high court judges, were reduced from $2,600 to $2,400. That was thirty years ago, and their salaries have remained the same from that day to this, although their work has been increased by more than 50 per cent. As I stated in my previous remarks on this question, since confederation there have been passed in the provincial legislature and in the Dominion parliament no less than fifty-two statutes imposing additional duties upon the county court judges, in addition to the duties imposed upon them by making them local judges of the high court. Now, if the cost of living was increased to the high court judges, it was certainly increased to the county court judges.
Then, there are a great many things which are deemed necessities to-day in the way of living which were scarcely known twenty-five or thirty years ago.	At that
time a coal oil lamp was the principal means of lighting houses; but today the electric light is a necessity. To-day electric light in one's house is a necessity. Thirty years ago we burnt wood at two and three dollars a cord, but now we burn coal which costs $7 and $8 per ton ? Thirty years ago we [DOT]drew water from a spring or river or well hut now we have water-works for which we pay taxes. Wages have increased and other expenses, but while there have been these increases in the cost of living, we find actual decreases in the amounts provided county court judges to meet those expenses. In addition to their salaries being reduced, their work has been increased over fifty per cent. They have now to do a good portion of the work formerly done by the high court judges. In many ways their earnings have been lopped off. Formerly the county court judges filled the office of master in chancery, to which certain fees are attached, but to-day we find very few county court judges in On-Mr. PORTER.
tario filling that office. That office is usually given to somebody else. Take the surrogate offices, which were formerly filled by the county court judges, to-day they are filled by others. It occurs to me therefore that county court judges have been dealt with unfairly, as compared with the high court judges, and the time is now opportune for the government to take the matter in hand and consider the whole question-not only the salaries of the superior and the county court judges, but the whole question of salaries. Let us adjust these salaries in such a way as to make them commensurate to the demands of the present day and the work to be done. It is not fair that gentlemen filling the honourable position of county court judge should be treated differently from those filling the position of high court judge. They should be treated fairly and paid a remuneration commensurate with the work to be done. Let any one sit down and figure out carefully, as I have done, what it costs a county court judge to live in a county town, and maintain the dignity of his office, and he will see that $2,400 is not at all adequate, taking into considera- * tion the rent, taxes, fuel, insurance, water-rates, light, and the support of a family, estimated at five, including clothing and education. There is another large expense which the county court judges had not to bear thirty years ago, but which they must undergo in order to keep up with their profession. They have to provide themselves with a library, the reports, periodicals, law journals, &c., which is no small expense. On a conservative estimate, a county court judge cannot live and enjoy the ordinary comforts of life on less than $2,200 or $2,300.
Is it fair then that he should only be paid $2,400 ? How is he going to provide for his family in the future ? He cannot engage in any other profession while oh the bench and should not do so, as he would thereby be lowering the dignity of his position, and he ought consequently to be paid, not only sufficient to enable him to live, but to enable him to lay by something for his family. That he cannot do on a salary of $2,400. I would urge on the lion. Minister of Justice to consider that view of fhe question and introduce legislation providing for a readjustment of the salaries of all the officials paid by the government. County court judges are not paid to-day as much as some of the officials of this government, who are not performing anything like as important duties or involving as great interests. I would suggest that the minister should introduce, at an early day. some measure that would give the relief to which county court judges especially are entitled.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not because some of the county court judges are not earning fairly good salaries to-day that I advocate an increase in their pay. but because they are earning a portion of their income in other ways besides dealing with cases in court.

There are but few county court judges who do not get more than $2,400 in the aggregate. 1 do not know of any who do not. The provincial government has passed various laws, particularly municipal laws, under which the services of county court judges are called upon and remunerated. If you want to readjust a school section, you call in a county court judge as arbitrator. Many of these provincial laws are so formed as to provide work for these judges. They get twenty dollars per day in arbitration cases, and it does not take long at that rate to run up $100. This is giving a premium to a judge to try and get that kind of work, and he will sometimes do it at the expenses of his proper work. There are many ways, under the provincial statutes, in which a county court judge can earn money outside his salary. That ought not to be. A judge ought to be paid fair remuneration for his work and thus made entirely independent of other sources. During the past few years, our provincial legislature has been legislating in such a direction as to bring the judges under their control, by providing a portion of their salaries from various provincial sources. I am not stating it as fact, but it is a current rumour that this is done in order to give the provincial government control of the judges. If that be the case it is to be regretted. That should not be the case. Now." if the salaries of these judges are not sufficient for them to live on-and I frankly admit that if they are only paid $2,400 a year I do not think they could live on it as judges should live-the matter should be dealt with. We are told that these judges are earning from other sources. As I have said, if that be the fact, it only strengthens the argument that their salaries should be increased. But in that case, I would favour paying them full and fair compensation ;
I would not object even if it were a little large compared with the earnings of men in other walks of life. Give them fair compensation, but pay it from some one source, and make them entirely independent of political parties or individual corporations or any power that may influence them judicially. That should not be allowed ; and that is the reason why I advocate increasing their salaries, and also why I advocate paying them from some one source.


Hance James Logan: I think there is a good deal in the suggestion of the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) that this whole matter of the judges salaries in Canada should be seriously considered and perhaps. considered by a commission or a committee of this House. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has spoken of the county court judges in the province of Ontario as receiving remuneration from other sources than the money appropriated for their salaries. That does not apply to Nova Scotia, though I do remember when the 3381
judges there used to be appointed revising officers under the late government. Now they are confined to the $2,400 of salary, and the few dollars of their travelling allowance. I do not think the point has been brought out strongly enough that the county court judges have increased duties. In the district in which I reside and practice my profession, from 90 to 95 per cent of the criminal practice of the district is before the county court judges under the Speedy Trials Act. The county court judges are not allowed any extra remuneration for this additional work. So, not only do 1 contend that the living expenses have increased very materially since the salary was made $2,400, but the judges' duties have been very materially increased since that time. I do not think we can attempt to deny the fact that living expenses have increased in the last twenty-five years. It is a fact that is patent to everybody ; it is patent to the people who demand higher salaries, including the artisans and workingmen. Even members of parliament have said that the expenses of living have increased so much that we felt justified in increasing our own salaries. Surely we cannot consistently contend that living expenses have liot increased during the last twenty-five years. No man can keep up the dignity of a county court judge and maintain his family as a judge should maintain his family, on $2,400 a year. Listening to this debate to-day, I hear hon. gentlemen say that the superior court judges of Ontario are paid salaries of $5,000, and that the judges of that province receive, including that which is paid to them by the Ontario government, between $6,000 and $7,000 a year. In Nova Scotia, I think, we have equally as good men upon the bench, but they are paid $4,000 a year, with $5,000 for the chief justice. Some hon. member spoke this afternoon about going to our constituents and talking this question over. I axn confident that I could go to my constituents or to the people of any constituency in Nova Scotia upon the issue of whether we should pay the judiciary decent living salaries, We can afford taxes in this country to pay for justice, but justice we must have. We must maintain the bench in a position of which we shall be proud. To pay only $4,000 to a Supreme Court judge, who is compelled to live in Halifax, where living expenses are high, is not reasonable. The salaries should be increased to at least $6,000 for the chief justice and $5,0(30 for the other members of the bench. Before I take my seat, I would like to ask the Minister of justice* if it is proposed, during the present session, to make provision in a case where a member of the bench becomes Incapacitated for his duties and remains so for a length of time.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The matter my hon. friend (Mr. Logan) has in mind has engaged my attention. I would not like


Charles Fitzpatrick: The remarks that have been made with regard to superior court judges apply also to the county court judges of the province of Manitoba. Their responsibility is greater than that of the county court judges of the province of Ontario, because their jurisdiction is wider. I hope that the time has arrived when a revision of the salaries of our judiciary will be taken into serious consideration, and that they will be paid a remuneration more nearly adequate to tbeir services.


Mr. MURRAY.: I have listened to this discussion with some interest, and I fall in with the views of those members who have spoken in regard to county court judges, and who think that $2,400 a year is a very small salary to pay to men who have the necessary ability to take that position. I think they should receive higher salaries. Take the ordinary business and professional men of this country, and I venture to say they will tell you that it is pretty hard to litvie on $2,400 a year. It has been pointed out by the hon. member for Hastings that when you take house rent into consideration and the expenses of living, there will be very little left at the end of the year to put by for a rainy day. I think the salaries of the senior judges of the county courts should be at least $3,000, that is quite little enough, and I hope that the Minister of Justice, in arranging the scale of salaries, will give the county court judges $3,000 a year. Asa layman I know what the people think about these matters. It would no doubt be very popular to go before the people and sav, see how the government has increased the salaries of the judges, although they have such an easy job of it. But we are here occupying responsible positions. and we must legislate for the best interests of the whole country. I know that it would be a popular stand, a position for demagogues to take, to say that the judges are paid high enough already. But as I say, we must legislate in the interest of justice and fair play. We must bear in mind what it costs to live: and I know very well that a judge with a family has to entertain and to keep up a social position, and to do that he requires a fair salary.
Resolution reported; read the first and second time, and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 250) to amend the Act respecting the Judges of the Provincial Courts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first and second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Will Mr. Chairman please read the section, we have not got the Bill before us.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Bill is not printed, and perhaps it is hardly proper to ask the committee to go on with it

now. I move that the committee rise and report progress, so that the Bill may he printed and be put into the hands of the members. There is no urgency.
Progress reported.



PENNY BANKS.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 198) respecting Penny Banks.-The Minister of Finance.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: When this Bill was in committee before, one or two clauses were reserved for the purpose of considering some suggestions that were offered in the discussion. In accordance with those suggestions I have prepared a couple of trifling amendments, not in any way affecting the general purpose of the Bill, but calculated to carry it out more effectually. In section 16, lines 17 and 18, there were some words which were thought to be obscure and it was suggested that other words might more clearly express the intention. I propose to strike out the latter part of the section and substitute other words, so that it will read as follows :
A. subscriber whose liability for his unpaid subscription shall cease and determine as hereinafter provided, shall, from the time such liability shall cease and determine, cease to bo a member of the bank.
I may remind the House that this is not an ordinary bank, but it is practically a benevolent organization, and provision is made that a certain guarantee fund should be formed. It is intended that that guarantee fund shall be a personal obligation, not following the estate of the party in the event of his death. The various parties concerned must keep the guarantee fund up to $10,000, and if any person who is concerned in that guarantee fund dies, as he ceases to be a member of the bank, his estate also ceases from all liability. But a new person must be substituted, so that at all times they will have a guarantee of $10,000. That is the purpose, which. I think, is more clearly expressed in these words than in the original words.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 33,
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Another section in which a change is suggested is section 33, which has reference to the statements to be presented by the bank. Tlie suggestion was offered that these statements shall be certified to by a chartered accountant. I thought that was a fair suggestion, and having considered it, I now beg to insert the following amendment:
To each of such statements shall be annexed a certificate from a chartered acountant that he has examined and audited the books of the bank and that he finds that such statement is a true statement of the affairs of the bank on the date named therein.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is a change from the law as regards ordinary banks ?


Thee MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes. The position of an ordinary bank would not apply to this at all. This is not a banking association for profit.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Some of these penny banks might be far removed from where a chartered accountant is to be found. Chartered accountants are only to be found in the large cities as a rule.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think it would be necessary that they would have to retain a chartered accountant to examine the books of the bank. I thought the suggestion was a reasonable one, and I was very glad to consent to it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the hon. minister if this legislation is borrowed from the English legislation upon this same subject ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, it is not.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are there not any banks in England organized on a somewhat similar basis ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There are penny banks, but I do not think they are organized on these lines at ail.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Where did the idea of this particular kind of penny bank originate ? Was it in our own country ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It originated from a proposal made by some gentlemen in Toronto, during the last session of parliament, who desired that an organization which already exists there-in fact I think there is more than one-could he brought under some legal organization in the way of receiving a charter. We took tlie ground then that it was not wise to organize special savings banks in Canada, because the government has adopted the savings bank business as its special function, but we intimated to these gentlemen last session that we would look into. the matter and see if we could not devise a general plan whereby these penny banks might become incorporated and as well as others having a like object. They drafted a Bill which has been reviewed and changed, and the result is this Bill now before tlie committee.
Mr. DaRIVIERE. Does the hon. minister think it is wise to call this a bank ? It is not a bank, but a savings society. Is it wise to apply the name of bank to it, because we forbid any company or individual to assume tlie name of bank, or banker, or banking institution, which is not entitled to do so, and I do not see why we should apply that name to an institution of this sort.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend (Mr. I.nRivieve) is quite right. No-

body ean use the term 'bank' except by the special authority of this parliament, but the term ' penny bank ' conveys a meaning to industrious and thrifty people which is convenient. We did not object to the title, but we were desirous that it should be surrounded by certain safeguards.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The word 'penny' qualifies the word 'bank' and gives it limited sense. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance will remember that when this matter came up before, 1 called his attention to the subject of co-operative banks, of which we have one in tlie town of Levis, and although I do not deny that an institution such as is contemplated by this Bill will do a great deal of good, particularly to people who are unfamiliar with that kind of institution to a large extent throughout this country ; I would ask the hon. minister to endeavour to obtain the opinion of some competent man in his department as to the project which I urged upon his attention previously-the establishment of co-operative banks. I conceive that these banks will do a great deal of good in the province of Quebec. They are doing a great deal of good wherever they have been established in Europe. I hold in my hand a memorandum, which X intended to quote, but which I will not, in order not to take up the time of the Committee, prepared by a well recognized authority on the subject, Mr. Wolff, who lias written a very complete work on the operation of co-operative banks. This memorandum lias been communicated to some persons in this country interested in the establishment of co-operative banks in response to an inquiry as to the working of these banks in Europe, and it refers in a special manner to the conditions existing in Canada. As a matter of fact, these co-operative banks are intended specially to facilitate tlie operations of people who could not obtain credit at tlie ordinary banks on account of tlie smallness of their means and on account of their not being accustomed to deal with banks. These banks are intended to procure credit for these people, and are particularly useful to an agricultural population. They have been established in Germany, there is a very large number of them in France, there are a great many of them in Italy and for the last two or three years, X think, they have become the subject of legislation in England. There are over one hundred and fifty of these hanks established in India at the present time. There are some in Barbadoes, and everywhere tliey have produced the most excellent results, not only in tlie way of procuring credit for people who require it. but also, as stated in this memorandum which I hold iii my band and which emanated from Mr. Wolff, by giving an education to the people in business and monetary matters and in absolutely elevating the tone of the whole community. Although it may appear strange at first sight, it is perfectly Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
true that these banks in no way interfere with the ordinary banks, that their establishment has been encouraged by the great hanks of Europe and that, as a matter of fact, they help the working of the great banks by procuring business for them which otherwise they would be precluded from taking. I think that, under these circumstances and from the fact that Mr. Wolff, having been fully informed of our circumstances hero and of the character of our agricultural resources, has expressed in this memorandum the opinion that co-operative banks would undoubtedly be a great success in Canada, that they would do a great deal of good in this country, the subject recommends itself to the attention of the hon. Minister of Finance, and I hope that before long it will so occupy the attention of the department that it will be possible for tlie bon. gentleman to give us some general legislation as to these banks which will permit of their establishment everywhere throughout the country.
Mr. BARKER, Section 33 requires that the returns shall be ' verified by the oath of the president or of one of the vice-presidents of the bank, or of the chairman of the board,' but it does not require in terms that it shall be verified by the manager. I suppose it is intended, and if so, instead of using the words ' and by the manager,' you should say ' and of the manager.'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think the manager is included.


Samuel Barker: The statement is not verified by his oath. It is simply provided that it shall be verified by the manager. It should be made to read ' and of the manager,' so as to follow the preceding words.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That certainly is the intention, and if the intention is not carried out. T would be very glad to have it amended to read :
The oath of the president or of one of the vice-presidents of the bank, or of the chairman of the board, and of the manager or other chief officer of the bank.
It should be ' and of the manager.' It should read 'of' instead of 'by.' I am very glad to accept my hon. friend's suggestion. I move that the word ' of ' be inserted instead of ' by ' in the sixteenth line. With regard to the observations of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), I may remind him that on a previous occasion, I made the statement that my attention had been drawn to that subject by several hon. members of tlie House, and also by a gentleman on the official staff of the House of Commons, who has, I believe, connection with one of these banks which has been in operation for several years in the town of Levis.	I promised that the
matter would receive consideration, and my officials have been gathering information concerning it : not. however, I may say.

witli any expectation that we should be able to do anything with it at the present session. Owing to my very many pressing engagements, I have not been able to give it much personal attention, but I will see that during the recess the matter is further considered. So far as representations were made to me, X was led to believe that these institutions, one or two of which already exist in Canada, have been doing a very satisfactory service.
On section 29,


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I want to say, Sir, just a word on that clause. There was a little misconception as to its meaning. The impression seemed to have reached the minds of some hon. gentlemen that the securities herein mentioned might be chosen for the investment of the general funds of the bank. Such, however, is not intended. The funds which may be collected from depositors cannot be invested in anything. They must be deposited in the government savings bank, and this clause has relation entirely to the small fund which is the guarantee fund, and which is the money of the promoters themselves and not the money of the depositors. They cannot invest a cent of the depositors' money in any security whatever; it must be put in the savings bank. But, we think that they should be allowed a reasonable degree of liberty, corresponding to some extent with the privilege we grant to insurance companies, respecting the investment of their own moneys, which, in this case, is only a comparatively small sum. I think when it is understood that the clause means only that, there can be no objection to it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The "clause applies purely to the guarantee fund ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, entirely.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And the nature of the securities.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They may have some money which they want to invest, and they are free to do so in anything that is a legitimate security.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Iii one of the clauses it is provided that the incorporators cannot invest in certain funds. Where does their profit come, in the operation of the bank ? You provide that they shall receive deposits and only pay on them the same rate of interest as the government savings bank or the post office savings bank, which is a very low rate. I have no doubt that they might loan out that money at a much higher rate of interest, and thereby earn something. But, if I correctly get the sense of this legislation, it does not allow them any profit.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I can say to my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) that the
whole intention is that there shall be no profit in the transaction. It is practically a benevolent organization. There is no intention to make a profit, and if they can get out of this investment, together with the slightly increased interest the government allows them, enough to pay working expenses, that is all that is expected. It is not a profit-making organization at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you make any provision as to what their salaries shall be ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No; the chief promoters will receive no salary whatever. They may have to employ clerical help, but it is not intended there will be any salaries to the principal promoters at all. Now, Sir, with regard to section 38, we have made provision there regarding penalties for officers of the bank who mak.e false returns, and I want to include in that penal clause the chartered accountant whose certificate is attached, so that the same penalty shall apply to the chartered accountant as will apply to any other officer who makes a false return. I move to amend this clause by inserting after the word ' bank ' in line 41 the words, ' and every chartered accountant,' and also after the word ' report,' in lines 35 and 42, the word 1 certificate.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and. section, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 239) to provide for the payment of bounties on lead contained in lead-bearing ores mined in Canada (the Minister of Finance), read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This Bill is an exact transcript of the resolutions which have already been passed in committee. The only question that was reserved was with regard to the use of a word in the first clause, which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition called my attention to at the last moment. At the end of the first clause it reads:
Such bounty shall be reduced proportionately by the amount of such excess.
It was pointed out that the word * proportionately ' was a needless repetition and that it might be omitted. The suggestion came from the leader of the opposition, and on a more careful reading of that clause, I think the hon. gentleman is correct. I propose that the word ' proportionately ' in the 14th line be omitted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section, as amended, agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
On section 2-mode of payment,
Frederick Debartzch Monk: I was not liere when the resolution was considered in Committee; but I would ask, was it not the case that an increase of duties was asked for by the parties interested, or the majority of them, hnd for what reason did the minister de-fcide upon giving a bounty instead of increasing the duty ? Perhaps my hon. friend has already gone into that.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, my hou. friend will find in ' Hansard ' a very full discussion. Before the third reading of the Bill, I shall be glad to afford any further information. The promoters of the Bill asked for duties and bounties alternatively.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed



IRON AND STEEL BOUNTIES.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the second reading of Bill (No. 23S) to amend chapter 8 of the statutes of 1899, respecting the Bounties on Steel and Iron, and to provide for the payment of bounties on certain articles manufactured from steel.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This Bill is exactly in the form of the resolutions; it contains no other provisions whatever, and the resolutions were fully considered in the Committee of the Whole.
On section 1,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the hon. minister made any estimate as to what he expects to have to pay per annum on these new items ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The bounties proposed on structural iron, plates and rods, the new items covered by this Bill, are estimated roughly on about one-third of the importation of last year. Assuming that we make one-third of the importation during this year, we will pay about $150,000 for the first year. Of course, if we make more than that, the'bounty will be proportionately increased. It may increase until we replace almost the whole of our importation, which would mean a bounty of about $100,000 as respects these items.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Information has been conveyed to me that iron and steel is imported in large quantities from Canada into the United States in pig-iron and billets, and comes back to us in a manufactured condition. I understand that there is in the United States a duty of $6 a ton upon what is the raw material to those who manufacture tools of all sorts, and that having gone through the process of manufacture there, Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
that materia] comes back to us in the shape of finished tools and instruments of all kinds, on which the manufacturers get a drawback of $5.99 a ton. I am informed that there is a considerable trade of that kind. Has the minister any knowledge of that ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think it was the case some time ago to a limited extent, but I do not think it is the case now. The producers of steel billets in Canada, not finding a market for their product here, sent it to the United States where it was manufactured into wire rods. The manufacturers In the United States paid the duty, as my hon. friend has stated, and they would be entitled to a drawback on their exports to Canada, the wire rods coming in free. Under this Bill I do not think that will take place. Indeed, I do not think it is being done at the present time, because the producers of billets in the United States have interfered with it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will the importation of wire rods cease with this bounty which we are giving for the production of wire rods, does my hon. friend anticipate ? There are large quantities of wire rods imported from the United States at this moment, as well as a great deal of wire.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As soon as the Canadian manufacturers find themselves in a positon to produce these articles,
I think the importation of wire rods from the United States will largely, if not wholly, cease.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have in my hand a letter from a gentleman who has been for a long time engaged in business, and he thinks it would have been a much better plan to have given a bounty only for pig-iron made from Canadian ore. My remembrance of the discussion that took place when it was proposed to give this bounty was to the effect that to make certain grades of iron it was necessary to import certain ores from the other side. Therefore we provided that the government give a bounty of $2 per ton on pig-iron made from foreign ore and $3 when made from native ore. This gentleman thinks that the development would have been much more rapid and greater had we confined the bounty to pig-iron made only from Canadian ore. I do no know whether the minister paid much attention to that or not. Another suggestion he makes seems to me to be very valuable. He claims that the Americans have rather disparaged our ores and refused to buy them on the ground that they contain too much sulphur, yet they are using their own ores w-hich contain a very much larger percentage of the sulphur and say they are all right. This leads him to the conclusion that they are doing this in order to depreciate our mineral properties and purchase them at lower prices ? He thinks that the government I have it in their hands to help the Canadian

mine-owners and the development of Canadian mines to a much greater extent, if the suggestions he made were carried out.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The suggestion that the bounty should be confined entirely to iron made from Canadian ore is so natural that it has been frequently made, and was fully considered some years ago. The provision giving a portion of the bounty to pig-iron made from foreign ore was inserted at the instance of the manufacturers themselves. They consider it desirable to have ores from different sources so as to blend them together, and thereby make a more perfect article than can be produced from the one ore. That system of blending different ores is adopted by iron men generally. The whole question was well considered, and it was not thought wise to refuse the bounty in the case of foreign ore, but a distinction is made. A bounty of 83 is given to iron made from Canadian ore, and $2 to iron made from imported ore. To have confined the bounty entirely to iron made from native ore would, in the opinion of the trade, have proved embarrassing to the iron industry. Newfoundland ore is counted as imported ore.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When at Sault Ste. Marie, l was told that it was absolutely necessary to mix the ore from Michipicoten with ore purchased from the United States in order to produce good material. We are coming to the assistance mainly of one company in passing this Bill, and I think it is a pity we did not go over the whole iron industry and adopt a general system of protection, which would cover every article manufactured from iron and steel as against the United States. This is confined to wire rods, rolled angles and rolled plates, but we would find a great deal more to be protected if we were to go over the whole list. Our importations from the United States of iron and articles manufactured from iron are increasing at a very considerable rate. Last year we imported in agricultural implements over 81,000,000 worth, pig-iron over $600,000; electrical apparatus, $1,500,000; hardware over $600,000; machinery, over $3,000,000; scales, over $100,000 ; tools and machines of all kinds, nearly $600,000. If we look at the latest reports of the United States, covering the eight months ending February, 1901,	1902 and 1903,
we will find that the increase in importations from the United States in these lines of manufactured goods were very considerable indeed. Take for instance, electric appliances, in February, 1902, we imported $17,000 worth, in February, 1S93, $47,000, and for the eight months ending February, 1892, $442,000 worth, and the eight months ending February. 1903. $516,000 Worth. For the same period, 1902, we imported $604,000 worth of hardware, tools and sawis and the following year, $1,158,000 worth. If we go over the different exports
from the United States to British North America, of productions resulting from the manufacture of iron, we find that the importations are increasing enormously every year, although I have no doubt that this system of bounties should have a beneficial effect, particularly with regard to the industries mentioned in the discussion to-day. But I think it is a pity that, with the immense mineral resources at our hand, we should not be able to exclude completely American productions, and keep the commerce entirely for our own market. I believe that we should move in that direction.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



STEAMSHIP SERVICE BETWEEN CANADA AND FRANCE.

[Stage Direction]
House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to make provision for a subsidy, not exceeding $133,333.33 a year, for a steamship service between Canada and France.-The Minister of Trade and Commerce.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I do not intend to pass this resolution through Committee, as I have not all the information I want to place in the hands of the House. The government have passed a contract with Mr. Colombier, of Bordeaux. He is a ship owner of some importance. We have a contract, which I shall lay upon the Table of the House, not at this sitting, but at the next sitting ; but I will give the substance of it now. The contract stipulates for a line of steamers to ply between Canada and Bordeaux, and ports of France, eighteen trips during the year-twelve trips during the ' summer months and six trips during the winter months. I may say that I have not the honour of knowing Mr. Colombier personally. He applied to tlie government, bringing letters of inti'oductlon from leading bankers of Bordeaux, establishing the fact that he was a member of a firm of some magnitude. But, not satisfied with that, I Cabled to the British consul of Bordeaux. I will bring down the answer we received from that gentleman. It was to the effect that the House of Colombier was a very respectable bouse, that it could not be said to be one of very large financial means, though respectable ; find that he understood that, for such an undertaking as this, Mr. Colombier had the capital necessary. With this assurance, we thought we could deal with Mr. Colombier. Tlie advantage of a line of steamers between Canada and France has been long recognized on both sides of the House. A statute was passed in the first session of 1896-the last session of the late government-providing for a subsidy of $50,000 for a line of communication between France 1 and Canada. This subsidy was found to


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is no doubt whatever that it is extremely desirable for us to extend our trade relations with France. Anybody who takes the trouble to consult the statistics relating to the trade between Canada and France, and who knows anything of the possibilities of commerce with that great country, must promptly come to the conclusion that we are yearly losing a very large trade with France. When my right lion, friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was in France on the occasion of his last visit we had an intimation that he was negotiating for the extension of our treaty rights with France. In the same way, we had frequent intimations that the Alinister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) was endeavouring to negotiate with the gentlemen who, at one time, represented Italy in this country, the basis of a treaty of,commerce with that country which would have been extremely profitable to us. If I mistake not, neither of these endeavours came to anything. The efforts made by the then Italian consul in the city of Alontreal were so barren of results that he gave up the attempt to arrive at any agreement with this government, and, if I am not mistaken, resigned his position.
But to come back to France. I think if it is desirable that we should establish better commercial relations with that country experience has taught us that we must proceed with great care, and that we should
10800

take every precaution to see that the efforts which we have made in the past in regard to the establishment of a line of steamers between Canada and France, and which have failed in a discouraging manner, should not fail upon this occasion. It is, as I have already suggested, very difficult to calculate to what extent our trade with France would increase if it could be put upon a proper basis, and particularly in view of the special commercial and tariff regulations of France, if we could establish a line which would be of a permanent character, and offer a permanent guarantee of success. I have taken the trouble to look up, in the last statistical year-book of Canada, some figures of our trade with France in the past. It has not been nearly as considerable as it might be. My right hon. friend has mentioned the article of pulp. There is no doubt that if we had a line of steamers 'doing a direct business with France we would have a very large market for our pulp ; although I have always clung to the idea that we should, as much as possible, keep our pulp here and manufacture it into paper ourselves. Still, there is no doubt that, with the immense quantity of pulp wood we have at our disposal some pulp must be exported, and there is an immense field in France for selling pulp if we could only establish that trade. A few days ago, in travelling up from Quebec, I met a very wealthy capitalist who had just come out from France, and who is interested in large cement works in that country. He was coming out here to see what opportunities there were for carrying on a cement business in this country, and I have no doubt that if facilities presented themselves for a trade in cement, a very large trade in that particular article could be developed with old France. Now let me give a few figures to the House showing wliat our expox-ts have been to France, taking up first the article of mineral products :
*	Value of
Year.	Exportation.
1897	$ 11,000
1898	practically nil.
1899		$	5
1900		 3,388
1901		 31,877
1902		 35,382
There is no doubt that in mineral products we could dio a very large business indeed with France, for example, in phosphates, in cement, in corundum, in a number of other minerals that exist in this country. In the item of fisheries I find the following figures :
Value of
Year.	Exportation.
1897		$295,000
1898		 381,090
1899		 561,000
1900		 526,000
1901		 6S8.000
1902		 442,000
1897.. 1898.. 1899..	Animals.	$127,000 4.000 3.000 11,000 23.000 18.000
1900.. 1901.. 1902..		
1897.. 1898.. 1899..	Agricultural Products.	$ 34,000 154.000 311.000 347.000 225.000 246.000
1900.. 1901..		
1902..		
1897..	Manufactured Goods.	$224,000 462.000 674.000 466.000 567.000 554.000
1898.. 1899.. 1900.. 1901.. 1902..		
I think there is no doubt that the nickle, of which we possess almost the exclusive production, with the exception of one other country, I believe, we could do a very extensive trade with France and with Italy. I was credibly informed the other day that a very large industrial company in France had sent out an agent here prepared to purchase any quantity of nickle matte. There are several other industrial companies in France besides this one who have carried the manufacture of the by-products from nickle to a greater degree of perfection than the manufacturers of any other country, and these companies would be rivals of the present American purchasers of that metal. But, as I said a moment ago, we have failed up to the present moment to establish a proper line of steamers witli France, and I believe that in many respects we have failed to cultivate our trade relations with that country as we should, because with France, Belgium, Italy and other countries of Europe we could do a far greater exporting trade than we are doing now. Every effort we can make in that direction should be made. We have in France, as representative, a gentleman who is well known to many of the members of this House, and than whom we could find no better representative. Mr. Fabre represents the Canadian interests in France with great success, and fills the place assigned him with a great perfection. Nevertheless he has now reached a certain age, he is a lawyer, and he has not been trained to commercial customs and habits of business. I think it would be well for. us to have in France, as we have in other countries, a purely commercial agent. We should have in France a person under Mr. Fabre's control, who would pay exclusive attention to the commercial relations of this country with France. My right hon. friend may say that we have at present there a commercial representative. There is a gentleman by the name of Mr. Poindron, who has been appointed by the government as commercial representative in France. Mr

Poindron is a very estimable gentleman, I am acquainted with, him, but he has not always lived in this country, he is not a Canadian, and I question very much it he is the most competent man we could find to till that position, and to carry out the objects I have just mentioned. I think we would require under Mr. Fabre's control a gentleman whose time should be taken up with commercial matters, a gentleman well acquainted with the conditions of the trade of this country, fully 'au fait ' with all our resources, who would from time to time report to this government, and who would display a greater activity than I think it is possible for Mr. Poindron to do, who is not of Canadian origin, who is not as fully conversant with the commercial situation of this country as would be a man selected with that qualification in view. As regards this steamship line, as my right hon. friend knows, we have failed in that twice already, and it is important for us to be fully informed before we go into a third venture. These are points, for instance, upon which I would like information, and upon which I am sure other members of the committee would also desire to be fully informed: What is the cost per trip of these vessels sailing to France ? What kind of vessels shall we have ? That, I think is all important. What is the capacity of these vessels ? What is their availability for carrying freight, and I may say also for carrying passengers, because it is important that we should have a proper passenger service connected with the freight service of this line ? What is this company ? My right hon. friend has mentioned the name of Mr. Colombier,. about whom I have heard that he is a man of some means-a merchant, I believe. Is he a shipper ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, a shipper.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does he propose to form a company, or has he a company already formed and everything at hand necessary to carry out this service properly, or does he merely intend-as I am afraid other parties connected with the steamship line that we have subsidized in the past have done-to form a company after obtaining this subsidy? What is the nature of this company, or is it the fact that Mr. Colombier is an amateur simply, or has he a company at his command, and if there is a company actually formed, what is the capacity of the company to secure trade ? Even if we havie an agent of great activity to endeavour to open up avenues of trade, we want to deal with a responsible company having everything necessary at its command, such as other steamship lines have to secure trade. Mr. Colombier is associated in this matter, as far as I am informed, with Mr. Carbon-neau. Mr. Carbonneau, as far as I know, has been speculating in mines in the Klondike, and he has been endeavouring to sell Mr. MONK.	.
a mine there called the Gold Run to capitalists in France. He has been in Paris with that object in view, as we are well aware from the papers which have been sent out here from France, and no doubt during his stay there, in his efforts to dispose of this mine and to put through other financial ventures, he has endeavoured to start this line of steamers. I do not wish to reflect in any way upon Mr. Carbonneau, because I do not know myself anything unfavourable to him except that in the city of Montreal he was connected with a company which contributed to a large degree to the ruin of La Banque du Peuple. The connection of that company with La Banque du Peuple, from the closing of which so many people suffered in the city of Montreal, was not of a favourable nature. I believe it was the Shipping and Trading Company, of which, if I mistake not, Mr. Carbonneau was the manager. I would not, speaking perfectly frankly for myself, place very much confidence in Mr. Carbonneau, from what I know of him, for the purpose of this great undertaking, because it is a great undertaking, requiring a serious and competent man to bring it to a successful issue. I would not like the committee to think that I am considering this question in a harsh manner, because I will quote from the opinion expressed by ' Le Moniteur du Commerce.' of Montreal, a financial paper having a large circulation, a serious paper, upon this very project. This is what the ' Moniteur du Commerce ' says, and as it is in French, I will translate it into English, so that the committee may see the view that this commercial newspaper takes of this project:
The New French Line.
The daily newspaper asserts that the federal government has signed a contract for a subsidy for a direct steamship service between Canada and France, the port of Bordeaux being the terminus of this line on the other side of the Atlantic. We have had so many disappointments on the subject of projects for direct communication with ancient France that we may be permitted to be a little sceptical on the subject with the information which has been conveyed to us. Preceding projects reached only the initial stage of execution. They were not serious projects and they turned out miserable failures because the promoters seemed to be aiming rather at the obtaining of an official subsidy of a few hundred dollars than the best means of increasing our trade between France and Canada. This time once more the indications of the project are vague and insufficient to reassure commercial people. It would be regrettable that the Canadian government should have concluded to grant an annual subsidy of $100,000 or thereabouts to an organization which would not be able to offer sufficient guarantees for the proper execution of the work. It has been mentioned that the contractors with our government are such people as Mr. Colombier and Mr. Carbonneau. Very good. To what association do they belong ? What guarantees do they offer that the millions of dollars contributed and given out of the treasury of the Can-



S, 1903

[Stage Direction]
aciian people will be employed advantageously tor the promotion of Franco-Canadian commerce which at the present moment is diminishing instead of increasing.
That is borne out by the statistics which I have quoted :
The federal department of commerce as well as the Department of Marine could perhaps inform parliament of the nature of the alleged contract which has been entered into for the establishment - of a French freight line of steamers between Bordeaux and Quebec and Montreal or any other place.
That the right hon. gentleman has promised to do.
The federal parliament will ask : Who is Mr. Colombier ? Who is Mr. Carbonneau ? Is the latter the promoter of the Shipping and Trading Company of whVh we have such an interesting recollection ? The contract in question is far too important to be allowed to pass without some comment.
That appeared on the 4th September. Tbe right bon. gentleman has stated that this contract would give us 18 trips a year. I think we should be fully informed as to tlie passenger accommodation which would be given on these steamers. I think that is more important than one would think at first sight, although, of course, the interchange of trade is the prime object. I will wait until the information which the few remarks I have just made justly call for will have been given to the committee as to the nature of the contract and the nature of the facilities afforded for carrying out this service. We are given to understand that a large amount of money is to be expended and expended, in my opinion, most usefully, because X think I can make it a reproach to this government that have not realized sufficiently our possibilities of trade with European countries, and with France particularly.
My right hon. friend remembers that 1 took some interest in tbe efforts made by tbe Italian consul at one time, to bring to a satisfactory conclusion our negotiations with regard to trade with Italy. I think we could do a very large business with those countries. In fact, if our exports of agricultural products had not increased so enormously within the past few years-from $25,000,000 in 1878 to $107,000,000 last year our trade with these countries would be practically at a standstill. This is a very good means to develop our trade with France, where, as we are all aware, the regulations are so stringent in reference to direct exportations to that country that it is impossible indirectly to establish a trade with France. However, we should surround this large grant with every precaution, and I hope the matter will be fully gone into so that we shall not fail now, as we have failed on previous occasions.
The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) stated the reason why the trade
between Canada and continental European nations has not developed as it should. It is because all nations of continental Europe, so far as I am aware, have the same tariff that France has; a double tariff favouring direct importation into their own country.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think there is such a provision in the Italian tariff. I am almost certain that my right hon. friend is wrong as to Italy with regard to direct importations.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Perhaps so. Let us confine ourselves to France for the present. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) says we cannot hope to develop any trade with France unless we have a direct line of steamers. This has been the bar to all the efforts we have made up to the present. My hon. friend has alluded to the negotiations we had in France last year with a view of improving our trade. These negotiations were purely informal. I had the benefit of the assistance of the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Finance on that occasion, and I think we all agreed that it was possible to improve our trade, so as to make it very acceptable to France and to ourselves. But all these efforts are useless until and unless we have a direct line of communication with France. We could not in the past be very particular as to the establishment of that line because the offers for it have been few and far between. This is really only the second offer we have received since we came into office in 1890. Mr. Colombier is a shipper of some importance in Bordeaux. As to that I have got direct information from Bordeaux itself. Beyond doubt his house is one of great respectability. Tbe contract that we have is with Mr. Colombier himself, and no one else. We have no contract whatever with Mr. Carbonneau whom we do not know officially. The only contract we have is with the house of Colombier. Naturally, Mr. Colombier expects to form a company; hut there is a provision in the contract that it cannot be assigned, except with the consent of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, so that if Mr. Colombier is not himself able to perform the service he has undertaken; if he wants the assistance of some other capitalists to join with him in that most laudable1 object; he must come to the government and we have to judge of the character, and the stability of the company which is to perform the service before we are called on to agree to it. This is one of tbe express provisions of the contract. As to the character of the service which is to he given, the contract itself will give to my hon. friend ail the information which he desires.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When may we expect to have this contract ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: We should have had it to-day. if I thought the matter would be reached, but the Minister of Trade and Commerce lias charge of tlie matter,
10S11

and it was too late to get it when I knew the question was to come up. 1 do not propose to take this matter out of Committee to-day, and at the next sitting we shall have all the papers brought down for the information of the House. My hon. friend shall find in the contract information as to the number of ships-if I remember right it is four, as to their capacity which I think is about 4,000 tons, and as to their accommodation for passengers and freight.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does Mr. Colombier own any ships ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Mr. Colombier is a ship owner, and does a large business in the Mediterranean. As to that, I have the most positive assurance. Mr. Colombier proposes to have new ships built especially for this trade, with accommodation for passengers. and not only for ordinary freight but for express freight, and also refrigerators. He proposes in a word, that the ships should l>e, as the contract provides, of the most modern pattern. It is useless for me to dilate upon these points, because all this information will be found in the contract itself.
At six o'clock. Committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at Eight o'clock.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When you left the Chair at six o'clock, I was about to make an inquiry of the Premier. I understood him to say that he liacj data which warranted him in believing that we could do a valuable trade with France in certain lines. Would he be kind enough to lay that data on the Table, so that it may be available to all of us ? Would he also let us know whether he has made any inquiry as to the specific lines of trade ? He mentioned two articles, agricultural implements and cement, in which he thought we might profitably increase our trade. There may be other lines on which I assume the information he has would be interesting and valuable to the House ; and we should consider these points before determining whether or not we should support the resolution. I believe some business is done with France at the present time in agricultural implements. I happen to have a nephew in France at present, establishing an agency for one of the agricultural firms, and he writes to me that he thinks there will be a very valuable trade done in the future. At present their business in France is carried on through London. It may be that the favourable duty clause could be taken advantage of if we had a direct connection with France, which cannot be done now. He mentioned also that there was a great demand for cement, in which a good business could be done, provided that it could be laid down at a certain figure. He also Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
mentioned pulp, which, however, he said was more uncertain. He mentioned several other lines in which he thought a profitable trade could be done. I think we should make a strong effort to establish and develop trade with that great country, because, from several letters which I have received from him, it seems to me to offer great possibilities ; and he has spent the most of the last three years there. As to whether we can make a trade with France pay, the history of the past gives us very little encouragement. Whether the difficulties have been such as can be overcome from this side is a question which I presume none of us can answer ; but I presume that the Premier has endeavoured to ascertain what the obstacles have been, and whether they can be overcome by a direct line of steamships. It seems to me that we ought to know what facilities there will be for carrying various lines of produce. Possibly a trade might be established in some of the dairy lines. In that event cold storage accommodation would be required if we hoped to develop it as we should. The passenger trade as well is a matter of importance. I think the Premier said that this company were expected to make about eighteen trips in a year. Whether that will be enough or not I do not know. I presume it would at least be a fair test of what could be done. We are told that we have a valuable agent there, Mr. Fabre. I do not: know why the right hon. gentleman should come to that conclusion, for while I believe that Mr. Fabre is a very estimable gentleman individually, I do not know that he has ever done anything to develop our trade with France. He went there first as an immigration agent. I remember looking up the record some time ago, when I found that lie had sent out three immigrants in the course of the year. Our trade with France does not seem to be developing as we might reasonably expect it to do, if we had a live, active, commercial agent there, I think a great deal more could be accomplished. In one of his communications to me, my nephew said he thought we should have an active agent there. I drew his attention to the fact that Mr. Fabre was there ; but he replied that so far as he knew, Mr. Fabre was not known in commercial life at all. He thought it would be a matter of importance to have an active commercial agent, who would advertise the country and endeavour to put people in France handling lines that we could furnish in communication with those producing them here. He thinks an important trade could be done in the agricultural implement line. The firm he represents are establishing agencies in France, and I think they intend to follow up their work there by establishing another in Russia, where he also thinks a valuable trade could be done. We are voting a considerable sum of money for this steamship line, and I think we

ought to know something about the firm taking it up. 1 was about to ask the Premier if he would not think it worth while to advertise for tenders, to see if he could not have other offers as well as the one he lias. 1 presume he has not yet closed with this company. Then, we should be informed as to the financial strength of the company, and as to its commercial relations with the people of France. It ought to be a company engaged in shipping, either as owner or agent ; it ought to be financially strong ; and it ought to be prepared to further the efforts of those endeavouring to establish lines of commerce with France. I would suggest that we ought to have a live agent appointed there, because, with all respect to Mr. Fabre, 1 do not think that lie is in touch with the commercial life in France.


Hance James Logan: I have listened with special interest to the remarks of the hon. member for East Grey in regard to the importance of appointing a live commercial agent in Paris. I was in Paris for some time, about a year ago, and while everybody seemed to have the highest opinion of Mr. Fabre as a very estimable gentleman, 1 found an almost unanimous opinion that he was not in touch with the commerce of France ; and if we are going- to spend a large sum of money to subsidize a steamship line between Canada and France, we certainly should have a good commercial agent in that country. The trade between this country and the French republic should be a very large one, for many reasons, and if we are going to pay this large subsidy, which 1 think is an excellent thing to do, we should have at the other end of the line a good commercial agent of Canada, who would make himself known, not only in Paris but in the north and south of France.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: As a representative of the city of Montreal, I have had something to do with this matter, not only in the present instance, but on former occasions when attempts were made to establish a line of steamers between France and Montreal. Up to the present, four efforts were made, the first of them dating as far back as ten years ago, and they were all failures. On this occasion the government is taking every precaution to achieve success. There can be no doubt that better communication is needed between France and Canada, particularly in the interests of trade. If you will look, Sir, to the figures in the report of the Minister of Trade and Commerce for the last year, you will be surprised at the facts you will find there. I take from the blue-book of the year ending the 30th of June, 1902, the following figures, and I have taken only the chief articles of French import. A most extraordinary fact is that while France imports from foreign countries $113,000,000 of goods, out of that only $309,920 worth come from Canada. Take
for instance, the item of live stock, there was imported into France from the 30th of June, 1901 to the 30th of June, 1902 $10,200,000 worth.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Where from ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have not all the details, but of that amount only $129,000 worth came from Canada, and according to the best possible authority at least $2,000,000 worth might be taken from Canada if the proper facilities were furnished. In butter, $4,000,000 worth were imported into France from foreign countries, and not a cent's worth from Canada. '


Edward Frederick Clarke: Have you any idea how much butter was exported from France ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, but the possibilities are that $2,000,000 worth of butter might be exported from Canada to France, if proper means were taken. Cheese, over $7,000,000 worth were imported by France from foreign countries, aud not a cent's worth from Canada. In that line there is a possibility of our sending to France a million dollar's worth. Green fruits, such as apples, and canned fruits, $5,000,000 worth were imported by France, and but $1,700 worth from Canada. The possibilities there are that we might count with certainty on sending $1,200,000 worth to France. Wheat, corn and flour, $8,000,000 worth were imported by France from foreign countries, and only $175,000 worth from Canada. Those who are competent to judge say that we could increase that trade to $3,500,000 if we went the right way about it. Raw hides were imported by France from foreign countries to the extent of $27,000,000 worth, and only $2,320 worth from Canada. In that line also we could make a large increase, amounting to some $2,000,000. Meats, $5,100,000 imported into France from foreign countries and none whatever from Canada, yet there is a possibility of sending $1,500,000 worth to France. Lard and tallow $4,000,000 worth imported from foreign countries and none from Canada. Those in a position to judge say we could sell a million dollars worth of lard. Deals and other lumber, $35,000,000 were imported by France of which only $200,000 worth came from Canada. In that line there is certainly great possibility, according to people who know, of our increasing 'Mir exports to $10,000,000. Staves, $7.000,000 were imported into Bordeaux, which is the chief place of consumption, and none from Canada. There is a total of $113,960, 000 foreign goods imported by France, of which only $391,921 worth came from Canada, and there is a possibility of that export being increased to $25,000,000. To show that one of the gentlemen connected with this new undertaking seems to have studied the question and to understand the situation

is the fact that Mr. Colombier went through Ontario and made a special study of the question of staves. After having discovered from the blue-book what had been Imported into France from foreign countries, he affirms, under his signature, that these $7,000,000 worth could be imported from Canada. Another article that did not appear in the statement I have just read to the House, is the item of pulp wood. At present France gets all its supply from Sweden and Norway, but no doubt a considerable portion would be taken from this country. Another article which has not been mentioned but concerning which inquiry was made by Mr. Colombier, is the article of railway ties.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there a firm ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes, Colombier Bros., of Bordeaux, a very old firm, connected with transportation. They have been in the trade for the last twenty-five or thirty years, and therefore have been in the habit of studying all the different kinds of imports and exports. Mr. Colombier is confident that we could export to France over 400,000 ties per year. There was a contract offered to him for ten years at the rate of 400,000 railway ties a year. Of course, it is such a big contract that it was very difficult to say whether it could be undertaken. I mention these facts only to show the advantages that could be got from the establishment of such a line. I should think that every body would agree to the proposition. The offer made the government was one which does not entail any serious engagement as regards money.
If these people are not ready to carry out the contract which they offered to carry out, of course no money will be disbursed by the government. But it will show once more how ready the government of Canada is to do anything in its power to establish new channels for trade. France has a population of 37,000.000 and. from the figures I have given it must strike every one that this trade has been neglected up to the present time. I do not blame the different governments; it has probably been due to circumstances and to difficulties that have not been foreseen. But when people who understand the transportation question take up this enterprise, people who will be able to establish, not only in Bordeaux but all over France, agencies for the gathering of trade for Canada, and who will also establish proper agencies in this country for return cargoes. I have no doubt that'they can make this business very profitable. There is an example in Montreal at the present time. The Robert Reford Company have been doing quite an extensive trade in Mediterranean ports, bringing fruits to Canada. They have made quite a success of it by confining themselves almost entirely to one line of goods. There is no reason ill Hon. Mr. PREFONTAINE.
the world why a company properly organized, with people who know their business and undertake with the idea of making it a success, should not be able to carry on work of great advantage to Canada and to increase wonderfully our export trade. Of course, the difficulty with the French line is very easy to understand. It is not so much the return cargo, for, with good agents, I think a line to France could always find a return cargo, but it is to find a cargo from France here. Colombier Bi-others seem to understand that perfectly well. They are up-to-date, and seem to know exactly what is wanted. They have lines to South America, and also lines out of Vancouver. They know the ground on which they are working. This is an occasion when the government may fairly claim credit for having done its duty to the country.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
Mr. WRIGHT.: Speaking of the trade in cement, do I undei'stand that we are to import it, or do we send it to France ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: France was to take it from U3, That is What Mr. Lefebvre told me. There is no doubt that we can develop a very large trade. But we shall require full Information as to the details of the contract. If it is satisfactory. I for one, would 339
be greatly in favour of establishing this line.


The PRIME MINISTER.: As I stated a few hours ago, the contract will be laid on the Table of the House. That will be the best way to give my hon. friends on the other side the information they desix-e. With regard to the party with whom we are contracting, Mr. Colombier, the government are not able to give more information than that we have received from the consul at Bordeaux. It appears from that information that he is a ship-owner of great respectability, and although not standing in the very front rank of the business, he is able to take hold of the subsidy which the government of Canada is anxious to give to some one. We have been disappointed more thaxr once, and have applied in diffex'ent quarters without any results. When I was in Great Britain last year, I had sevex-al interviews with Sir Alfred Jones, of the Elder-Dempster Line, and I almost succeeded in inducing him to take clxax-ge of this service and to take the subsidy which we are to provide for it. I have reason to believe that Sir' Alfred .Tones would have accepted the service were it not that he had disposed of the largest part of his ships to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and they were not available for that service. Now, with regard to the agency we have in France, not only Mr. Fabre, who is more of a diplomatic than a commercial agent, but we have appointed Mr. Poindron, who is a very excellent gentleman, and whom I consider more valuable than my hon. friend from Jacques Car-tier is inclined to consider him. He is familiar not only with France, but witlx Canada. He resided for two or thx-ee yeax-s in Canada when he was agent of the" line which had but a sliox-t duration, and in which Mr. Clergue, of Sauit Ste. Marie, held the largest interest. He has also been agent for a .Canadian line for some time plying to tbe port of Bordeaxxx. He has, therefore, acquired a pretty accux-ate knowledge of the condition of trade in this country: he also knows the tx-ade of France perfectly well, and when we have this line in operation we will be able to see what he can do. at all events. Mr. Poindron is there really on trial. His report will be brought down. If he succeeds, well and good; if lie does not, of course the government will have to look for somebody else.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How long has he been there ?
The PRIME MINISTER, Since the month of September a year ago.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I had some correspondence with this young man who was there, and he had no knowledge of him, and I directed him to hunt up Mr. Fabre. His answer was that Mr. Fabre could not be regarded as a commercial agent, but was rather the representative of the country.



TUe PRIME MINISTER. Mr. Poindron is the commercial agent whose business it is to look after trade matters alone. When I said a moment ago that we had ample data to justify our expectation of developing a large trade, I did not mean to say that we had any particular data. But\we have the report of Mr. Poindron, and I venture to say that the public data we have justifies all the expectations which have been entertained on both sides of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not understand what the minister meant by direct trade. "Would it not be equally a direct trade if the steamships were to call at other ports?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, the moment the steamship leaves Canada and goes to Southampton and crosses to France, all the goods are subjected to a surtax on the boat. Therefore, in order to have fair-play under the treaty, we must have a direct line from port to port.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think the French government, in a case of this character, a direct line going straight from Canada to France, gives a bounty in some shape, so many francs per ton of the vessel. Perhaps the Minister of Marine and Fisheries could inform me.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not remember the exact sum which is given by the French government per ton to every vessel, whether it is in a line between France and Canada or France and any other country. There is a general law, and all proprietors of ships have the privilege of taking advantage of that law. But the vessels must be under French register. In this ease, it could only apply to two of the ships, because two have got to fly the British flag. So what they would gain on one side by sailing under French register, they will lose on the two which will sail the British flag.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then, there would be four ships?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are these ships in existence to-day ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I understand they are under contract to be built, to be delivered on the 1st of April next.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has this question been referred either to Mr. Fabre or to Mr. Poindron, or did these gentlemen, Mr. Car-bonneau and Mr. Colombier, bring letters from either of our agents in France ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: We had nothing to do with Mr. Carbonneau, but only with Mr. Colombier. We cabled to Bordeaux to


Thomas Simpson Sproule: ascertain the standing of these gentlemen, and I will bring dowrn the telegram.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Why did you not apply to your agent in France for that purpose ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Mr. Fabre is located in Paris, and we thought it advisable to get information of the sanding of Mi-. Colombier direct from the consul at Bordeaux.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the salary paid to Mr. Poindron ? Has he made any report, and has it been brought down ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I understand he has made more than one report, but it has not been brought down. I could not say at the moment what his salary is.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would like to get some information from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on another question. We had before the House a short time ago the question of subsidizing vessels to take Canadian products to South Africa. I was not quite clear then as to the conditions under which this service was to be performed. We find, however, that vessels subsidized to go to South Africa were permitted to take the produce of the United States, which entered! into competition with our own produce in South African markets; that these vessels received part of their cargo from the United States, and that while the Canadian people had to bear the burden of the subsidy, the American exporters derived part of the advantage. We find also in the case of the steamers plying on the Pacific, that while they are subsidized and have been assisted by the people of Canada, they also carry American manufactures to Japan, and when our Canadian manufactures reach Japan they are subjected to a higher rate of duty than the American manufactures. I would like to know more about the subsidy to be given to the vessels which are to run direct to French ports. I have no objections at all to subsidizing a line of steamers if it will help to develop our trade and justify the expenditure. But I want to know if there are any stipulations made with regard to freight rates, with regard to the trade that we desire to promote, and if there is any provision made for rates ? I have no doubt that American exporters will take advantage of vessels running direct from Montreal or Quebec in the summer, and from Halifax and. St. John in the winter, and use them to send their goods, those in which they desire to promote trade, to France to compete with our own goods. Is there any provision made for discriminating in freight rates against American products ? The hon. gentleman will see that if the Canadian people are to pay for chartering these vessels, for subsidizing lines to run to Japan, to run to South Africa and to run to France, it would be unfair- that our American friends, who are competitors with us in

many of those articles we export, should be permitted to come in and take advantage of these subsidized lines. I think they should, if they are getting the use of these vessels, pay a portion of the subsidy ; and it seems to me that if some reasonable provision of that kind is not made it will be most unfair to tax the Canadian people to pay this subsidy and to allow our American competitors to get the advantage of the service without contributing anything towards it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: All I can say to my hon. friend in regard to this matter is that we had some complaints some time ago. I myself received some complaints a short time ago that the line of steamers whicli we have subsidized between Canada and South Africa was carrying American goods. I referred the matter to the Department of Trade and Commerce which replied at once to the parties who had the contract, the Allan, the Elder Dempster and the Furness line, to get an explanation on the subject. I do not know what the answer has been, but of course I can assure my hon. friend that we did not subsidize this South African line to carry American goods.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The matter came up when the subsidy for the South African line was under consideration, and the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) admitted that these vessels carried American goods. We surely cannot afford to subsidize these vessels in order that American exporters can compete with ourselves in South Africa ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce said that he would inquire into the matter.


Edward Frederick Clarke: No, he said that it would be an advantage to our shippers because if these vessels got a full cargo they would be able to take our goods at lower rates than if the vessels were not filled. We should get some information in regard to the matter ; because, while we desire to extend our trade, we should see to it that our American competitors are not permitted to use these vessels on more favourable terms than ourselves, or even on equal terms, unless they are willing to pay a portion of the subsidy.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise for the purpose of objecting to tins subsidy or any subsidy that will increase our trade with other countries. As I understand it this is a contract for eighteen trips and there will be no regular date of sailing.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: There will be ? Of course they will be advertised ahead, but, if we had regular weekly or fortnightly trips it would help to increase the trade.
I would like to know if anything has been 339J
done with regard to making arrangements with the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other line of steamships. The right hon. Prime Minister has stated that this must be a direct line, otherwise we cannot get the benefits that would result from a trade with France, and that if the steamer were to call at Southampton the surtax wouldl be applied. Would it not be possible to arrange with the Canadian Pacific Railway, or with any other line of steamers, for a fortnightly service, the steamer to leave Canada, go direct to France, then go to Southampton and then on their return leave Southampton, go to France and come direct to Canada ? In that way I cannot see that there would be any danger of the surtax being applied. A company like the Canadian Pacific Railway, or any other company having so many steamers, would be able to give us a fortnightly service. As I understand it there will be eighteen trips. That means $7,500 per trip or about $250 per day for each steamer even if it does not do any trade of any kind. I believe that one of these steamers can be run for almost $250 per day anid I believe it would almost pay any steamship that had as many vessels as the Canadian Pacific Railway, Allan or Dominion Line to start a steamship from Southampton, go over to France, get whatever passengers and freight are there and bring them back to Canada. Even though we had to pay $7,500 per trip for a fortnightly service, if it were well advertised I think it would be more likely to increase trade between France and Canada than to have a service for which we have to advertise a week or two ahead the day the steamer would sail. If it were understood throughout the Dominion that on a certain day you could always depend on a steamer sailing for France and at the same time for England I think it would add greatly to the usefulness of this service. I certainly would not hesitate to increase this subsidy to secure a regular fortnightly service and I think it could be got much cheaper by arranging with one of these large steamship lines to have their steamers run in the way I have indicated ; that is to leave Canada, go to France, then come over to Southampton, then return from Southampton to France, and then back to Canada. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman would say whether that could be arranged and if that would not overcome the difficulty that there may be in the way of the service.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The only thing I know is that this subsidy has been going begging for several years and that all these large companies have been unwilling to tackle it.


John Dowsley Reid: Have these companies been offered an amount equal to $7,500 a trip ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: We have been approached by nobody except this firm.


John Dowsley Reid: $133,000 for eighteen trips. Has it been put in that way to these companies ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond Prefontaine).: $133,000 is to be paid in case they make twenty-four trips. It is provided that they shall make eighteen trips and get $100,000 which is equal to $5,000 per trip. This resolution provides for $133,000 and the contract specifies that they need only make eighteen trips.


The FRIME MINISTER.: The contract is for eighteen trips for which they will receive $100,000, but they can increase the number up to twenty-four trips and receive $133,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman If any precautions have been taken to protect Canadian exporters against discrimination in rates ? Suppose wre contribute this $133,000 towards the establishment of this line, and find that we at once develop trade in certain articles that have been mentioned here, and then find that our American competitors in these articles can get lower rates for the carriage of their goods on these steamships than are given to Canadians, surely that wTill not be right ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not know that the contract provides against it. I have not the contract here. We will have to wait until the contract comes down.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it not reasonable that we should have some protection of that kind ? We should not pay a subsidy in order that our American competitors may reap the advantage.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have not the contract under my hand but it is provided in the contract that the rates are under the supervision of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand that this resolution will not leave the Committee tonight. I suppose we will have the contract down before we can proceed further ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask my right hon. friend when he brings the contract down to be good' enough also to bring the commercial reports sent by Mr. Poindron so that we may have all the information before us.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: I think if the government would give $5,000 per trip for a fortnightly service and have the steamers run direct from this country to France and then to Southampton it would be an advantage.
Sir WILFRID LAL'RIER.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think we had better start in a quiet and modest manner before undertaking that.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have discovered in my notes that it is provided in the contract that there shall be no discrimination against Canadian goods and that Canadian merchants shall always have the preference.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am glad to know that there is to be no discrimination. I think they should have an advantage in respect to freight rates.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is in the contract that Canadian merchants have the preference in the shipment of their goods and there shall be no discrimination against them.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If they have enough Canadian products to fill the vessel, they will get the preference, but they will get no advantage as to rates. If we have a diplomatic agent in France who has been there for many years, would it not be a very good thing to cable him to ask as to the status of both these gentlemen whose names have been mentioned ? His long experience in Paris, his intimate knowledge of Canadian affairs and his intimate knowledge of some at least of these gentlemen would enable him to give the right hon. gentleman the information as to their character and standing. It is significant that in the handbook from which the hon. member from Jacques Cartier has quoted, the name of this firm does not appear at all among the shipping masters of Bordeaux.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think I will be able to satisfy my hon. friend in a more direct manner by bringing down the correspondence we have on this subject.


Edward Frederick Clarke: From Mr. Fabre ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: From Mr. MacDonald, British consul at Bordeaux.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But Mr. Fabre is our own agent in France.


The PRIME MINISTER.: But France is a very large country, and Mr. MacDonald knows air. Colombier, and Mr. Fabre does not.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I presume Mr. Fabre is only a diplomatic agent.
Progress reported.
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 217) respecting penitentiaries.-The Minister of Justice.
On section 35,
Jlr. aiONK. Is this new ?
The ailNISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick). Only subsection (c) which is intended to facilitate improve-

ments without causing any unnecessary hardship.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Previous to this law in addition to the retiring allowance, there was, I think, a gratuity payable to the officers of the penitentiaries.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No. If they are paid a gratuity it is voted each year by the House.
On section 45,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This is for the purpose of protecting the penitentiaries against contagious and infectious diseases. Recently, when the small-pox was prevalent, we were obliged to receive prisoners into the penitentiary and to provide for them after we brought them there. Under this law, we will not he obliged to receive them until such time as they are certified to be well.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What will you do with them in the meantime ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They remain under the control of the provincial authorities.
On section 50-juvenile offenders.found incorrigible, may be removed from reformatory to penitentiary.


John Dowsley Reid: If the offender is a small boy, I do not see anything in the clause to enable the warden to keep him separate from the old hardened criminals In the penitentiary. Should not some provision of that kind be made ? Otherwise his association with them might have a tendency to educate him in crime, and make him more disposed to commit crime when be came out than before.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Unfortunately, there is no such provision for the protection of the juvenile offender as the hon. gentleman suggests. Once a man gets into the penitentiary he is there with the other criminals, and there is no classification or separation with respect to the ages of the criminals. The juvenile offenders, as my hon. friend is aware, are detained in reformatory prisons ; but if it is there ascertained that a juvenile offender is quite beyond hope of being reformed lie may be removed from the penitentiary and dealt with there.
On section 56-if insane when term expires-discharged if not insane.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You make provision for two things here. You set apart a place for insane convicts in the penitentiary; but you provide as well that all convicts who are found upon examination by the surgeon to be insane may be sent to an asylum ; and you also provide that the warden of the asylum may send them to another penitentiary.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We have got an asylum for insane criminals at
Kingston to which we remove all such criminals in eastern Canada. With respect to British Columbia, we provide that an insane criminal in the penitentiary there shall be removed to the insane asylum of that province, as it would be out of the ques-ton to remove him to Kingston.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it would be important not to remove the insane criminals very far, but there might be a ward in every penitentiary set aside for such prisoners.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The modern practice is to consider these diseases as curable, and to deal with insane convicts in the same way as we would with other insane persons. In Kingston the hospital is really a section of the penitentiary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the same surgeon attend them ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: At Kingston it is the same surgeon. He is a most competent man, and performs the duties most satisfactorily.
On section 66-misapplication of transportation money by discharged convicts.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This is new. Convicts who are supplied with conduct money in order to pay their way to the place whence they came, are In the habit of remaining about the town or place where the penitentiaries are situated, and become perfect nuisances. This provides that when a man is given money to leave the place, he should use it for that purpose.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But suppose he finds employment, would you compel him to leave the place ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The point is well taken, and I shall let that section stand.	[DOT]
On Schedule A,


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is it the intention of the government to replace Dr. Ducliesneau, the present warden of St. Vincent do Paul ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has he resigned ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: He sent in his resignation.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Who is replacing him ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The deputy warden is acting in his stead, as is customary in such cases.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When is it intended to replace Dr. Duchesneau ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Immediately after the session. I must really get some time to consider the condition of St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) will remember that we have had trouble there for many years. The

time lias come when we should deal with it so as to put tills penitentiary on the same level as the others, and endeavour to have about the same conditions prevail there as prevail in our penitentiaries generally.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is the penitentiary in very bad condition at present ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We have not had any special outbreak, but my hon. friend will remember that we had them there periodically. I would desire to see what can be done towards what I think the betterment of the penitentiary, to restore discipline and put the institution on a better footing than heretofore.
On schedule for Kingston penitentiary,


John Dowsley Reid: I see that the position of surgeon and medical superintendent of the insane ward are united. Is Dr. Phelan filling the two positions?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: Are the physicians who are employed in connection with the penitentiaries allowed to practice ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, and that has been made a grievance against the present government-that we have not allowed the physicians to practice outside. The law was amended in 1895, and the principle has been established ever since 1896, because new appointments since then have been made subject to the conditions that the appointees should give all their time to the institution, and not practice outside. That is the law. I may say, speaking generally and once for all with regard to this schedule of salaries, that the net result is to increase the salaries in the aggregate by about $7,200.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I see this schedule provides for the medical superintendent for the insane ward of Kingston penitentiary at $1,000. I understand that Kingston is the only penitentiary in which there is an insane ward, and that Dr. Phelan is able to attend to the insane ward as well as to the rest of the penitentiary. If you have a physician for the insane ward alone, it might amount to giving a man a sinecure at $1,000 a year.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: So far as the insane ward is concerned we have an average of thirty patients there. Dr. Phelan now performs the services with respect to both that ward and the penitentiary generally; but it may happen that he may not continue. In that event, our intention was to have an ordinary surgeon appointed to attend to the wants of the penitentiary generally, to whom we would pay a salary of $1,600 a year, and it might be necessary to have a specialist for the insane ward to whom we would .pay .$1,000 a year. But. under this schedule, if both positions are held by one man. instead of paying $2,600, Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
we take permission to pay $2,100. There is a reduction in the salary of the chief keeper from $1,200 to $900. Then we have a reduction in the salary of the hospital overseer and school instructor from $1,200 to $S00. The assistant hospital overseer and school instructor is reduced from $700 to $600.


John Dowsley Reid: Why are they reduced ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Because the salaries paid heretofore are really more than they ought to have.


Uriah Wilson: Perhaps the minister would tell us what salaries they previously got, and what salaries they are paid now ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Take, for instance, the hospital overseer and instructor. Under the schedule he was entitled to $1,200, but as a matter of fact he has only been receiving $800. We have got a man perfectly competent to perform the duties of the office and who is content to perform them for $800. But under the schedule he is entitled to receive $1,200, and the life of the minister is made a burden to him until such time as that man gets all he possibly can get under the schedule. My hon. friend may have a similar experience himself if, by and by, he comes to administer this department ; if there is any leeway he will find that the officers will not give him any rest until they have reached the maximum. The chief keeper, for instance, at the present time receives $900, and has been paid that, though he is entitled to $1,200. I may say, speaking of the salaries generally, that are fixed in this schedule, they are the salaries that are actually paid, with one or two exceptions. There is no intention to interfere with the salary of any man that he is now actually receiving, there is no intention to reduce it But I want to eliminate the temptation of appointing men and giving them salaries in excess of what they are fairly entitled to ; especially do I want to relieve myself of the continual appeals that are being made to me to increase the salaries because the schedule provides for it.


Uriah Wilson: I quite agree with what is being done. I do not think we should have a schedule of prices a great deal above what we can get the men for.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My attention has been drawn to a fact I overlooked. In speaking about changes, I forgot to mention there is an increase to the night keeper of $100. He Is now receiving $600, and because of the very arduous duties be performs we propose to increase his salary to $700.


Uriah Wilson: I suppose he is a very good man ?


Tlie MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: lie is. Speaking generally of the officials of the Kingston penitentiary, we have very little to complain of with respect to their qualifications and the services they render.


Mr. TAYLOR.: What is the denomination of the chaplains at the different penitentiaries ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: One Protestant and one Roman Catholic. At Kingston, St. Vincent de Paul and Dorchester, the Protestant chaplain is of the Church of England. The Protestant chaplain at Manitoba is a Methodist, and the one at British Columbia is a Presbyterian.


George Taylor: Are all the Protestant convicts at these penitentiaries members of the Church of England ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is a question I do not profess to have any special knowledge of. But I have a remedy to propose, that is, to allow each denomination in the locality where the penitentiary is situated, to send a clergyman to the penitentiary occasionally to minister to the convicts. When I proposed that amendment the last time the Bill was under consideration, it received a very cool reception, there was no desire to allow that to be done. Perhaps I ought to say this, that one of the agencies in this country to which we are most indebted for their services to the convicts is the Salvation Army. They have what they call the Prison Gate service by which they become acquainted with the prisoners that are about to be discharged, and keep in touch with them, meet them at the gates, and get employment for them. There is a large and important branch in Toronto who take charge of convicts discharged from the Kingston penitentiary, and I believe do them much good. 1 can say that that particular institution has done a very good service so far as my knowledge of their work in the penitentiaries go.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me the suggestion of the minister that a convict should be allowed the services of a minister belonging to the church to which he adhered, is a very good one. I cannot see why there can be any objection to it. I should think that almost any church might do for a convict when he goes to the penitentiary.


Uriah Wilson: The minister spoke of the services rendered to convicts by the Salvation Army, and I think he spoke truly. I know something of what they have been doing in that line, and I think I would go a little further than the minister and, while recognizing the services of chaplains of other denominations, I would give a small amount to the Salvation Army to encourage them, for I believe they are doing better work than perhaps any other church along that line.
They are looking after the convicts after they come out, and that is very important, and they are trying to keep them from falling back into their old vices.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Salvation Army have never suggested that they should receive any remuneration for any of the work they have done. The only request they ever made to me was that they should be allowed access to the convicts ; but it has never been suggested directly or indirectly that anything should be paid them for this work, in fact I do not think they have ever asked for remuneration.
On schedule for Manitoba Penitentiary,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The present schedule provides for a salary of $2,000 for the warden at the Manitoba penitentiary, but as a matter of fact he has been in receipt of a salary of $2,200 under the old schedule that existed previously to 1895. This provision authorizes the payment to him of the salary of which he is actually in receipt, $2,200. Everybody is aware that Colonel Irvine, the present warden, has been in the employ of the government a good many years and has done very good service indeed, and is a very competent officer.
On section 34,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have just been reading over the suggestion which the hon. min-ter makes in regard to the chaplains, and it seems to me to be a very proper one. It is this :
The minister, instead of appointing a Protestant chaplain for any penitentiary, may direct that the clergymen of the different Protestant denominations represented in the community where a penitentiary is situate, shall be permitted to perform the duties of the Protestant chaplaincy in rotation, each in his turn taking a week, the assignment being under the direction of the warden, in which case the salary allowed for a Protestant chaplain shall be divided among the clergymen of the several denominations performing such duties in proportion to the time given to such duties by each.
I should certainly assent to that.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It seems very fair and proper. I beg to move to amend section 34 by adding that as subclause 2.


Uriah Wilson: Do you intend to finish the Bill to-night 1


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No.
Mr. WILSON Why not let that stand until to-morrow and take it up again ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Very well.


Uriah Wilson: I think it is worth thinking about.
Progress reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Lnurier).: Mr. Speaker, as we have done a really very good day's work, and as an encouragement to our lion, friends on the other side of the House, I move that the House do now adjourn.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Before we adjourn I would like to ask my right lion, friend what business we will take up to-morrow ? Is it intended to go into Supply or to take up some other business ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is understood that we shall take up the Redistribution Bill.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will we continue that Bill from day to day until we finish it ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Oh, I was under the expectation that we would finish it in one day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 9.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, September 9, 1903.