1904-05-30

PRIVATE BILLS-EXTENSION OF TIME

Mr. WM. M. GERMAN moved :: That the petition of John Murphy and others, presented this day, praying that the necessary leave be granted to lay before the House the petition of Edward R. Cahoone for the passing of an Act extending and confirming the extension of time to construct, &c., under certain letters patent, notwithstanding the expiration of the time for presenting petitions for private Bills be read and received, and referred tp the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders.	.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I think there should be some explanation of the delay.


William Manley German: The delay has arisen, as I understand it on instructions, from the fact that the solicitor who had been engaged to look after the matter misunderstood our General Patent Act He was under the impression that under the statute, which he thought rather ambiguous, it was not necessary to make application to the officers ot the department to extend the time for manufacturing beyond the two years' limit provided for by the law, and the two years' time had passed before he was made aware of the fact that the law made such an application necessary. Not having made the application to the department, he is advised to get the parliament of Canada to pass aD Act extending the time. Whether that is to be granted or not is another matter. But there has been a bona fide mistake on the part of the solicitor who had the matter in charge.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. F. D. MONK.: Before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, I am obliged to call the attention of. the government once more to the state of affairs that exists in Cote St. Paul in regard to the bridge over the Lachine canal. The superstructure is not being proceeded with, or, at any rate, is not being proceeded with with the expedition which, it seems to me, the government should have the right to exact from the contractor, and the public are suffering very great inconvenience indeed from the delay in the execution of the work. I understand that the contractors have many buildings under way in the city of Montreal, but it must be evident that it will cause greater inconvenience to the public to have this bridge neglected than to have delay in the construction of buildings. There is not in the contract, as I am informed, any clause providing a penalty in case the required works are not finished within a specified

time ; and, probably, tbe contractors, who have this clause In most contracts, are availing themselves of the absence of it in the contract for this bridge. Under these circumstances, and in view of the number of letters of protest that I am receiving every day from people in the locality, I would suggest to the government the advisability of serving the contractors with a protest. If they were served with a formal protest, it would undoubtedly have the effect of hurrying up the work somewhat.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: I know that the matter has been brought to the attention of the department. But I will call the attention of the minister to the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Monk).



SPEECHES OF LORD STRATHCONA

Mr. HENRI BOURASSA.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to call the attention of the government to some speeches that have been made by our High Commissioner in London, Lord Strathcona. A few weeks ago attention was called in the Senate to a speech by Mr. Preston, Commissioner of Immigration, in which he had expressed some opinions which were not thought to be in conformity with the imperialist gospel. To the question asked in the Senate, the Secretary of State replied- very properly, I think-that the government were in no way responsible for the utterances of Mr. Preston, and did not wish to be understood as siding with one party or another in England. Lord Strathcona. speaking on the 14th of May, expressed himself very strongly-as he has done on previous occasions-in favour of the policy of discrimination on the part of England as between the colonies and foreign countries. On previous occasions the noble lord advocated the idea of creating an imperial council. Of course, I have the greatest respect for Lord Strathcona and for his personal opinions on British or imperial politics, but it seems to me rather improper that the official representative of Canada should be understood as taking an active part in British politics and as siding with one or other of the political parties in England. I think it is also undesirable that it should be understood that such utterances are endorsed by the Canadian government, or are meant to express the opinion of the Canadian cabinet. I suppose that when the Canadian cabinet has an opinion to express it must express it in Canada and under its responsibility to the parliament of Canada. It seems to me that some declaration might be made as to Lord Strath cona's speeches similar to that which has been 4nade in the upper House with regard to the speeches of Mr. Preston.


Wilfrid Laurier: My colleague the Secretary of State speaking in the other
House expressed the view that the government is not responsible for any acts or words spoken by any of its officers if they do not act in their official capacity. Lord Strathcona, we are all glad to know, occupies, in addition to his position as High Commissioner for Canada, a very high position in the social and political world of Great Britain. He has expressed his views on many occasions on different subjects, but I am bound to say, in justice to him, that I am not aware that he has ever on such occasions presumed^ to speak on behalf of the Canadian government. He simply expressed his views and of course he has a right to his own opfnions, but in so doing he does not in any way bind the government of which he is an official.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.

Mr.  A. A.@: LEiFURGEY. I beg to call at tention to the fact that on April 25, I received an order for copies of documents and reports in connection with the Murray Harbour Railway and Hillsborough bridge, and also an order for details of the actual cost of construction of the Murray Harbour Railway. Up to the present time I have had no return. I may say that before putting this motion on the order paper I had placed questions on the paper, but the minister requested that an order should be asked for and said he would give fuller explanations.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will my hon. friend give me the subject and the
date ?


Mr. LEFURGEY.: The Murray Harbour Railway and the Hillsborough bridge. The 25th of April.


Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX.: I wish in the absence of the member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) to inquire as to a return in reference to cheese curing at Brockville and Woodstock. I do not see the Minister of Agriculture in the House at the moment, but he promised that these papers would be brought down on Friday.



AMENDMENTS TO RAILWAY ACT.

Mr. WT. F. MACLEAN.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the First Minister when the government are likely to introduce an Act amending the General Railway Act. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) and myself have public Bills in that directiou and we would like to get on with them. But we would like to proceed with them perhaps under the auspices of a government measure, and if the government intend to bring down such a measure and will bring it down at an early date we could probably have a discussion on all these points under the one order. My object is to obtain from the leader of the House, or from the Minister of Justice a

declaration as to whether such a measure is likely to be brought down by the government and when we may expect it.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Minister of Justice I think is ready to introduce the Bill of which he gave notice the other day in committee of the House. It may come up this week.


William Findlay Maclean: Would it be agreeable to the government then to discuss all these amendments to the general law under one order ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I cannot say that to-day.


William Findlay Maclean: Then we will have to go on to-day if we are called.



PAY OF THE MILITIA.

Mr. DAVID HENDERSON.: I desire to draw the attention of the Minister of Militia and Defence to a matter which at the present moment is of considerable importance to many people in this country. The various volunteer corps will soon be called upon to go into camp, and amongst those who are in charge of the work of securing men to increase the force there must be a considerable degree of uncertainty as to what the pay will be for those going into camp. From correspondence which I am receiving, I judge that this uncertainty prevails to such an extent that it is likely to produce an uncomfortable feeling if men who are promised certain compensation, when they come to be paid find out that the regulations do not permit of that increased pay. I would like the minister to say for the benefit of the country at large whether or not he has prepared any regulations in conformity with the resolution which he recently brought before the House, and whether the rates of pay prescribed by that regulation will go into effect this year, so that the uncertainty will be removed and those in charge of companies will know what to promise to the men.


Hon.  W. S.@: The question to which my hon. friend has referred is one of importance and perhaps thei House will permit me to read the regulation which it is proposed to publish immediately. This regulation has been prepared during the past week in my department. Before reading it I may say that the Bill to be based on the resolutions adopted by the House, increasing the pay of the militia, has not yet become law, and it will therefore be necessary to take an additional vote to "the estimates of the present year and the proposed estimates for the next year and to attach certain words to that vote in order to enable the department to pay the rates proposed in the new Bill which are in excess of the rates provided by the present law. This is Mr. MACLEAN.
the regulation which has been prepared ; it is substantially the same as that which will be promulgated in the ' Gazette ' :



LONG SERVICE AND GOOD CONDUCT PAY.

[Stage Direction]
Long service and good conduct pay shall be issued to warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and private soldiers of the active militia, permanent corps excepted, at rates, and under conditions, as hereunder :-
1.	Rates of pay.-1st year, 20 cents ; 2nd year, 40 cents ; 3rd year and afterwards, 50 cents.
2.	Conditions.-
(a.) To have been duly enlisted in a corps of the active militia, other than the permanent corps.
(b.) To have performed for any one annual training, the number of days drill ordered for the corps to which they belong. .
(c.) To have, while performing such drill or training, become reasonably proficient in the duties prescribed for their arm of the service and in the use of the rifle, or the weapon with which they are armed.
(d.) Not to have merited punishment, if a non-commissioned officer, greater than that of a reprimand, or if a private soldier, than that of admonition.
3.	If at any annual training a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or private fails to comply with the above conditions, he shall forfeit all previous good conduct pay, and shall be entitled only to the net pay of his rank.
4.	Members of corps performing the whole annual training in camp after the first June instant (1904), will be eligible for long service and good conduct pay. Continuous service immediately preceding the date, of the present order may be reckoned to qualify for the higher rates of pay, provided the above mentioned conditions have been fulfilled in connection with said previous service.
From and after the first July, 1904, the provisions of this order shall apply to all corps performing annual training either in camp or at local headquarters.
Mr. SAM, HUGHES. That Is in addition to the regular rates.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: This refers to good conduct pay only.


Mr. SAM HUGHES.: The regulation will come into force for this coming camp ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: And the immediately previous year's service will count as one of the two years' pay?


Frederick William Borden: Exactly.


Samuel Hughes: Would it not be advisable that a considerable proportion of this increase of from 20 to 50 cents should be given for proficiency in the use of the rifle ? There should be so many marks for each specific item in the proficiency of a soldier, and I should say that a good number of points should be givfcn for the rifle shooting.


Frederick William Borden: It would be impossible to make a regulation of that kind to apply to the past. It may be possible to make some such arrangement for the future.


Mr. A. T. THOMPSON.: With regard to the use of the word ' continuous ' I would like to call the attention of the minister to the fact that for tho past two camps the full strength of the peace footing has not been called out. Now, suppose you have a man who has enlisted, and who has attended many camps of instruction, but not the last or preceding camp, because he was not allowed to go ; it seems very hard in a case of that kind that he should not get any increase in pay.


Frederick William Borden: He is serving notwithstanding that he is not called out.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I do not clearly understand the meaning of the word ' continuous. ' >


Mr. TISDALE.: I should not think that there would be any doubt that that point is covered, because if a man has not been allowed to go. out and serve during the previous year, that year should surely be counted.


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I would be of the opinion of my hon. friend from Haldimand and Monck (Mr. Thompson), that there would require to be some modification in the Act.



THE BUDGET.

Hon. W. S. FIELDING. (Minister of Finance).: I promised to make a more definite announcement in respect to the budget than I was able to upon a 'former occasion, and I desire to say now that it will be brought down upon the first government day of next week which will be Tuesday.
,	INQUIRY FOR RETURN.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called. I would like to ask when the documents and correspondence relating to the employment of aliens upon the work of the survey of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will be brought down. A portion of the correspondence was read by the hon. the Postmaster General (Sir M illiam Mulock) when the matter was up for discussion on the railway measure. However, before the question had been then discussed I had moved for a return. The hon. the Postmaster General promised, I think, that it would be brought down at an early date, but I have not observed that it has been brought down as yet.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think I can say that it will be brought down probably to-morrow, and if not then the day after.


Mr. CLARKE.: May I ask the right hon. the Prime Minister when it will be possible to bring down a copy of the commission issued to Judge Winchester in reference to this very matter ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think, if the hon. the Postmaster General is in his seat to-day, it will be brought down.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 48) respecting the Nicola, Kamloops and Similka-meen Coal and Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.
Mr. HYMAN.: This Bill was before the committee upon the last occasion for taking up private Bills and the only question of doubt was as to whether this railway had been declared to be a railway for the general advantage of Canada. I find that by chapter 64 of the statutes of 1903 the railway was declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada and therefore the Bill comes within the scope of our legislation.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



TIMAGAMI RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 94) respecting the Timagami Railway Company- Mr. McCool.
Mr. SPROULE.: In the committee the names of two directors were stricken but. and I raised the question whether these directors were aware of that and had been consenting parties. I understood the hon. member in charge of the Bill to say they were consenting parties, and that lie had letters in his possession to that effect. I have since been told that that was not so.


Mr. McCOOL.: The assignment of both these gentlemen was presented to the Railway Committee.


Charles Smith Hyman: As a rule the committee looks into the matter very closely, and in this case the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) will remember that the assignment of these two gentlemens' interest in the road was presented to the chairman of the committee and placed on file.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 104), respecting the Tilsonburg, Lake Erie and Pacific Railwmy Company.- Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 91), respecting the Toronto and Hamilton Railway Company-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 77). respecting the Hamilton Grimsby and Beamsville Electric Railway Company.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 105), respecting the Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway Company-Mr It. F. Sutherland.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. TAYLOR-by Mr. Sproule-asked :
1.	Is the government taking a census or making an enumeration in the District of Saskatchewan, or any part thereof ?
2.	Is any such census or enumeration being taken by any officers of the government ?
3.	For what reason and under what authority
is such census or enumeration being taken or made ?	.
4.	When was such census or enumeration begun, and when will it be completed ?
5.	What is the object or purpose thereof ?
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) :: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	4 and 5 covered by answers 1 and 2.


FOREST PROTECTION.
Mr. LANCASTER asked :: 1.	Has the government been informed that a resolution in the following terms' was passed at the fifth annual meeting of the Canadian Forestry Association, held in Toronto on the 10th and 11th of March last ' Resolved, That in view of the proposed construction of a new Transcontinental Railway, and the projection of other lines, passing largely through coniferous forests, the attention of the government of the Dominion and the provinces, and also of the railway companies, be called to the serious danger of loss of valuable timber consequent upon the construction and operation of suclr lines, if all possible precautions to prevent the starting of fires are not taken ; and to urge that the question be given full and careful consideration, so that to the end sought the party or parties contracting to build the different sections of the said roads be required to enter into an agreement for an efficient equipment and control to prevent fires. That at such seasons as may be necessary and effective, patrol be established along all the afforested line of railway, and that the officers, both of the government and of the railways, be required to use all possible diligence to prevent the starting or spread of 1 fires, through defective equipment, or through the carelessness of the operations or negligence of the employees under their control.
' Resolved, That this association urge upon the federal and provincial governments the advisability of a careful examination of the water sources of Canada, upon which the supply for agricultural, manufacturing, or irrigation enterprise depends, with a view to the adoption of such measures as will assure the proper conservation and maintenance of the forest growth, so essential to the continuance of an overflow in the streams during a season of the year when it is most required ; and to the prevention o? destructive floods, and erosion of the watersheds, such as have occurred in older lands.'
2.	Has the government taken any action for the purpose of avoiding the dangers pointed out in the resolution ?
3.	Does the government propose to take any action for that purpose ?
4.	If so, what action does the government propose to take ?


Charles Smith Hyman: 


Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister of tbe Interior) :: 1.	Yes.
2,	3 and 4. The subject is receiving the careful attention of the forestry branch of the Department of the Interior. An efficient service will be organized when the railway7 crosses Dominion lands, and arrangements will be made with the provinces where protection to timbered lands owned by the provinces is required.
As to the clause relating to water supply, that subject has been and is receiving the attention of the department so far as Dominion lands are concerned.


CANADA-FRANCE STEAMSHIP LINE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN-by Mr. Sproule-asked :
1.	Has the government, since the beginning of the present session, entered into any negotiations with any person, firm or company, with a view of establishing a line of steamers between Canada and France ?
2.	If so, with what persons, firm or company ?
3.	If not, is it the intention of the government to take any steps for the establishment of such a line of steamers ?
Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT (Minister of Trade and Commerce) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	With the Armstrong Company.
3.	This is answered by tbe answer to number 2.


TREADGOLD CONCESSION COMMISSION.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN-by Mr. Sproule-asked :
1.	Has a new commission been issued to Mr. Justice Britton to resume or continue and terminate the investigation into the Treadgold ard other concessions in the Yukon ?
2.	If so, has the commissioner taken r.ny steps, and what steps, to fulfil the duties imposed upon him ?
3.	When is it expected that the commissioner will make his report ?
Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister of tbe Interior) :: 1. Yes.
2 and 3. The commissioner lately informed the government that he expected to be able to devote his time to the matter immediately', and hoped to report about July 1st.


POINT AUX TREMBLES WHARF.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEONARD-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	Has the government received any request for aid in connection with the reconstruction or the repairing of the wharf at Point aux Trembles, in the County of Laval ?
2.	By whom was that request made ?
3.	Does the government purpose granting any financial assistance for those works ?
4.	If so, w'hen does the government propose to have such subsidies voted, and to what amount ?
5.	If not, what are the reasons for such refusal ?
Hon. CHARLES HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. J. E. E. Leonard, M.P.
3.	4 and 5. It being tbe general policy of the department to incur expenditure only on works which are government property, the matter of the ownership of this property is now being investigated, as it does not appear to be owned by the government.


SEAL COVE, N.B., WHARF.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GANONG-by Mr. Lancaster-asked:
Has a survey been made for a landing wharf at Seal Cove, Grand Manan, N.B. ? If so, what is the estimated cost of the same ?
Hon. CHARLES HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Estimated cost of breakwater-wharf extending to twenty-two feet depth, $282,000 ; to twelve feet depth, $74,700.
G.T.P. RY.-APPLICAT ;.ON FROM MESSRS.


COX, HAYS AIIO WAIN WRIGHT.
Mr. BARKER asked :: To what persons, on what dates, and under what circumstances, was the application of George A. Cox, Charles M. Hays, and William Wainwrlght, read to the House by the Honourable the Finance Ministir, on the morn'ng of the 27th May, 1904, communicated wholly or in part previous to the same being so road to the House ?


Rt.   H@: The application of Messrs. Cox, Hays and Wainwright, which was read on May 27, by the Minister of Finance, was communicated to the cabinet and to nobody else. As to the date, it is impossible to say at what date, but it was shortly after it had been received.


CLAIM OF -MR. JOHN CAMPBELL.
Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES moved for :
Return of the corresp jndonce between Lr. Rutherford, chief veterinary inspector, and Dr. Gerrow, and between the latter and John Campbell, Esq., of Fairview Farm, Mariposa, Wood-ville P.O., in relation to the shipment of sheep to the United States, and the quarantine therein ; as well as in relaiim to the claim made by Mr. Campbell for repayment of express charges connected therew-. h.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the facts substantially are these :	Some time during
the year 1903, Mr. John Campbell, the famous sheep grazer, whose name is well known throughout the length and breadth not only of Canada, but of the United States, and who receives a considerable number of orders from other countries as well for the famous breeds of sheep that he raises, received an order from the prepresident of some breeding institution of Chicago for some sheep to be shipped to Massachusetts. Mr. Campbell, as was his 119
duty, had the animals inspected by the local government inspector, Dr. Gerrow, who communicated with the Department of Agriculture at' Ottawa and received the proper authority for Mr. Campbell to send the sheep to the United States. Mr. Campbell sent them by express, and paid the government officer the inspection fee, and also paid the express charges on the sheep. A short time after they were shipped, the-sheep were returned to Mr. Campbell owing to some technicality that had been overlooked by Dr. Rutherford. I do not know the details of the matter other than these. I am not finding any fault with Dr. Rutherford, but I think that in all fairness Mr. Campbell is entitled to a refund from the government of the expenses to which he has been put through the inadvertence of Dr. Rutherford. I think the minister will agree that Mr. Campbell is certainly entitled to a refund of his dollar inspection fee and his express charges on the sheep. He is willing to let the rest of the expenses go.


Mr. FISHER.: I shall be very glad to have the papers brought down. Mr. Campbell applied to the veterinary surgeon, who is authorized to give certificates for export, for a certificate. This veterinary surgeon is not an officer of the department but is authorized to'do this work, and his name was submitted to the American authorities as that of one whose certificates are to be accepted. Mr. Campbell wrote to the department asking about the regulations, not for the New England states, but for the western states, but he alluded to certain regulations with regard to the New England states. Alluding as he did to those regulations, Dr. Rutherford naturally concluded that he knew all about them, and only replied regarding the regulations governing shipments to the western states. Then without further inquiry or communication Mr. Campbell sent his- animals to Massachusetts and they were stopped at the Niagara frontier. As I understand the United States regulations, there is nothing to authorize the stoppage of those animals at the Niagara frontier, but of course that is a matter of interpretation with which we have absolutely nothing to do. But the point of issue is this, that we were not informed that Mr. Campbell was going to send animals to the eastern states. I would have been glad to have paid Mr. Campbell the amount he asked for, but there is no vote in my department out of which I could pay it, and the facts did not warrant my asking parliament for a special item.


Samuel Hughes: There is evidently a misapprehension somewhere. So far as Dr. Gerrow is concerned, is he not an officer of the department appointed by the minister himself ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He is authorized to give export certificates.


Samuel Hughes: Then is lie not an officer of the department ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not in the sense that he is paid a monthly salary.


Samuel Hughes: He is the only veterinary officer of the department who has the power to give a certificate to pass animals in that locality.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He is authorized to do that.


Samuel Hughes: I have here a letter from the deputy minister. While it sums up the matter very plausibly, nevertheless between the lines you can see that even Dr. Gerrow put the case pretty fully fefore the government :
Deputy Minister's Office,
Ottawa, December 7, 1903.
Sir,-I have the honour, by direction, to acknowledge the receipt of your further letter of the 24th November ultimo, with reference to your claim for a refund of express charges on a shipment of sheep to Massachusetts, which you base on the ground that the expense was incurred in consequence of incorrect or insufficient information furnished by the Chief Veterinary Inspector, Dr. Rutherford.
Under date the 16th December last, W. J. Gerrow, V.S., of your town, wrote the Chief Veterinary Inspector that owing to the prevalence in the New England states of foot and mouth disease, there seemed to be some uncertainty among shippers in his locality as to whether there were restrictions on the shipping of animals to the western states and other points. As this letter stated that the writer was aware of the prevalence of the disease in New England, the Chief Veterinary Inspector reasonably assumed that he knew of its natural consequence, the United States quarantine of that area, particularly as both facts have been simultaneously and widely published in the Dominion ; and that as there was uncertainty in the minds of the shippers as to the western states, it would not be in doubt at all as to the prohibition of entry into the infected area itself.
That is the supposition merely of this officer, and there is nothing in the correspondence to show that any such statement was made. Then he proceeds to say :
Dr. Rutherford consequently treated the letter as an inquiry as to the western states.
What was his authority for so doing ? I do not find it here.
And other points in the United States outside of the infected area, and gave the information accordingly.
Here Is the most interesting part of the whole letter :
The term ' United States ' used in his letter of the 20th December last, in referring to Dr. Gerrow's letter, is clearly a typographical error.
How could Mr. Campbell be assumed to know that Dr. Rutherford had made a typographical error in telling him he could ship his sheep to the United States.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Dr. Gerrow asked regarding the western states and not the eastern states. Here is his letter dated December 10th. 1902-the letter to which that letter of Dr. Rutherford was the answer :


Samuel Hughes: The sheep were shipped only in January, 1903.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, the correspondence ran into 1903, but it began in 1902. Here is Dr. Gerrow's letter :
Dear Sir,-Owing to the prevalence in the New England states of foot and mouth disease in cattle there seems some uncertainty among shippers in this locality as to whether there are restrictions on the shipping of animals to the western states and other points.
I am frequently applied to for certificates for shipping sheep and young cattle for breeding purposes to the United States. Would you kindly inform mcf as to where the above-named animals may or may not he shipped at the present time.
That was taken as a request with regard to the western states. '


Samuel Hughes: Will you please read the answer of Dr. Rutherford ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of December 16th asking for information as to whether there are any restrictions on the shipping of animals to the United States and other points.
That is the point that was taken to be a typographical error. It was written ' western ' states as the request applied to the western states.
I understand that the state of Illinois has issued an order prohibiting the importation of animals from Ontario and Quebec unless accompanied by certificates of health from qualified resident veterinarians. I have, however, received no official notification of this action on the part of the state government of Illinois.
I have communicated with the authorities of the state of Illinois asking them to furnish me with a copy of the reported order. As soon as I receive definite information. I will see that Canadians interested are fully apprised of its nature.	.
It is evident that the answer was altogether in regard to the western states. The letter referred to the action of the state of Illinois through which practically all the shipments to the western states must go.


Samuel Hughes: Let me quote the letter of the deputy minister of agriculture :
The minister regrets that you incurred this expense ; but as there is no fault on the part of the department, he is unable to recommend the payment of the claim.
I trust the minister will see his way clear to laying the papers on the table.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly.


Samuel Hughes: And also that he will see his way clear to pay this claim,

seeing that the expense was incurred through the blunder of his officer. I am not finding especial fault, but, as a matter of fair-play the claim ought to be paid.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not sure whether I understood what the minister said as to Dr. Gerrow. Did he say that, though a veterinary officer of the department he was not authorized to give certificates for export ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. He is not a regular officer of the department, but he is one of those veterinaries in Canada who have been recognized by the American authorities as qualified to give certificates for export.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) delivered a message from His Excellency the Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the message as follows :-
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons supplementary estimates of sums required for the service of the Dominion for the year ending 30th of June, 1904, and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act of 1867, the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
<Sgd.) MINTO.
Mr. FIELDING moved that the message of His Excellency, together with the supplementary estimates, be referred to the Committee of Supply.
He said : This is a special item of urgency, to enable the Minister of Public Works to continue operations in the repair of the Ottawa Post Office-an item of $10,000. The printed sheets will be distributed during the afternoon. I may take this occasion to say that there are one or two other items of a like urgency, and when the House goes into Committee of Supply we will ask attention of the committee to these items in preference to the ordinary estimates.


G.T.P.-AMERICAN ENGINEERS ON SURVEYS.
[Stage Direction]
. On the proposed motion being called for :
Statement showing the names of all American aliens employed In connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific surveys in Canada ; the nature of their employment, and the reasons for their employment, to the exclusion of Canadians.- Mr. Ralph Smith.
Mr. RALPH SMITH.: As a similar motion to this has already passed the House and the question has been fully debated, I beg to move for the permission of the House to drop the motion.
Motion dropped.
119*


TICKET-OF-LEAVE SYSTEM.
Mr.  F. D.@: MONK (Jacques Cartier), moved :
For a return of all prisoners allowed out on ticket-of-leave since the first of May, 1903 ; the nature of the offence for which such prisoners have been sentenced, and the reason of the release of said prisoners on ticket-of-leave.
He said: Is there any objection to this motion ?


Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice).: There will be no objection to slowing the order to go so far as the number of prisoners is concerned, but I would not like to give the names. I do not think it is in the public interest that a man who happens to be allowed out from the penitentiary on ticket-of-leave should have his name published throughout the country. I would also ask my hon. friend to amend his motion in regard to the reasons for the granting of the ticket-of-leave. Sometimes I have a report from a judge saying that he has condemned a man for two or three years for the purpose of giving an example at the time but the judge may subsequently write to me stating that he thinks that at the end of a year or 14 or 15 months the man should he released. I do not think these reasons should be given.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) is rather astray in assuming that I want the names of these released prisoners published ail over the country. I do not know whether he takes that view.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It would be an official return and of course would be liable to publication.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Not necessarily.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Oh, yes, it would he a parliamentary return.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Very often returns are made in a manner which shows they are not for publication. The question that presents itself to my mind is how are we to ascertain the working of the ticket-of-leave system unless we can get this information. I did not ask for the names of the prisoners allowed out on ticket-of-leave; I asked for a return of all prisoners. It is possible perhaps to obtain that without giving their full names.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is right.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But even if it was necessary in a return brought down to parliament, to give the names and the date of conviction, I find that we are very often obliged, seeking information in the House to obtain the names of parties who would much prefer that their names should toot be brought down to parliament. I see nothing in the prohibition mentioned in Bour-inot's work which would protect these parties

against their names being entered in a report which is not necessarily for publication ; which theoretically in fact is supposed to be private, for communication to the members of parliament only, exactly as everything that takes place here is not supposed to be communicated to the public. Theoretically it is supposed to be brought down for the use of members of parliament.
I do not see how we can get that information unless we get the names of offenders. I think my hon. friend may assume that I have no great desire to have their names published throughout the whole country.
I think we are clearly entitled to know the nature of the offence in each case. In fact that is already published in the reports. It is a matter of tracing that will take a great deal of time and my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) will not- intend for a moment that the members of parliament are obliged to go through all that work when they have an absolute right to obtain the information here. Now as to the reason that is the principal source of information which may enable us to form a judgment as to the adequacy of the causes which induced prisoners being released, members of the House will notice that we do not ask for communication of any reports, confidential or otherwise, from the judge or from the officers of the department. These reports, when marked ' confidential ' my hon. friend the Minister of Justice may claim should not be communicated to parliament. There are precedents for that, but surely if we are to judge of the manner in which the law is being administered we have a right to know the reason for the releases.
That reason is mentioned in the public documents. It may be published in some of the public reports of the department for all I know. My hon. friend is mistaken in supposing that the motion calls for any confidential communication of any kind whatever. If a man has been condemned for an offence probably three or four reports of a confidential nature have passed before the ticket-of-leave has been granted him. We do not ask for those. All we ask to know is the reason. Surely we are entitled to know. Was it ill health ? Was it on the recommendation of outside people or on the report of the judge ? We may not be entitled, although that is a question, to the confidential report of the judge, or a letter or other document of a confidential nature as I find upon examining the reasons given in Bouri-not's work for refusing papers moved for, confidential communications, in some case-, from the officers of the department to the head of the department, but surely the high court of parliament is entitled, when inquiring into the way that this law has been administered, to be given the reasons for the release of this man.


Samuel Hughes: Can my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) suggest any case where a judge Mr. MONK.
has any authority or where it is his duty to make a confidential report ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I may say in answer to my hon. friend that possibly the report of a judge asked as to the advisability of giving a ticket-of-leave may be considered confidential. It is not necessarily confidential, but I can conceive of a case in which a minister might invoke the plea that it was a confidential communication. In the same manner possibly communications from officers of the department asked to make a special inquiry and to make a confidential report might be so treated. But, there are no state reasons. All we want to know is statistical, the offence, the time of condemnation and the reason for granting of the ticket-of-leave. It seems to me that we are asking for something that the House is entitled to obtain.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In view of the statement made by my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) I have to say that what he asks for is perfectly reasonable and I am quite prepared to give it. I understood the hon. gentleman to ask for names but I apologize if I have misunderstood him. I shall give the different penitentiaries and the number from each penitentiary.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That would be perfectly satisfactory.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to dabble in this matter further than to say that one can very readily see how it will be possible for a star chamber system to grow up in this country if the fullest opportunity is not allowed to parliament to inquire even into the names of these men. Of course, I do not want to be too hard on a man who is sent to penitentiary. There are a good many men in the penitentiaries of this country who are as honest as some of us who are out of it. I do not think that there should be any hesitancy in giving a return of the names of these men together with all information relating to the circumstances under which tickets-of leave were granted to them. I think the public has a perfect right to know who are the men to whom tickets-of-leave are issued why they are issued and who make the recommendations. The recommendations of a good many judges in this country would require to be very carefully examined into before they would bear very much weight with the citizens. The fullest publicity should be permitted in all these matters. We do not want any star chamber system to grow up in the Dominion of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order being called for Mr. Lennox to move :
That a Select Committee of eleven members of this House be appointed to prepare and in-

troduee a Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts respecting the public revenue, the control and administration of public moneys, the raising of loans authorized by parliament, and the auditing of the public accounts, with power to send for persons, papers and records ; and that the right honourable the leader of the government be authorized and requested to name th^, members of the said committee.
Haughton Lennox: Mr. Speaker. I mentioned tills matter to the right lion. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and as I am as anxious as possible to prevent this question from having any political cast it is understood that I shall allow it to stand for the present.
Motion allowed to stand.


WEIGHING DAIRY PRODUCTS.
Mr. RUFUS POPE (Compton) moved :: For copies of all correspondence, documents and reports, between the government and any party or parties, relative to the question of weighing dairy products at the port of Montreal, or elsewhere in the Dominion of Canada ; as well as all documents, papers and letters connected with the commission appointed to investigate the same.
He said : I beg to acknowledge the courtesy of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) in sending me a copy of a report of the commission reported to investigate this matter. I trust that he will facilitate these other documents as it is my intention to introduce a motioA in this House in connection with the indifferent manner in which this subject as has been treated by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TOLTON-by Mr. Lennox-moved for a return showing-
How many official or private cars have been constructed, purchased or acquired for the government since the year 1S96. For what purpose each such car is purchased. Whether any and which of the said cars are allotted to any and what members of the government, respectively ; or to any and what departments of the government, respectively. What sum has been expended or appropriated in constructing, purchasing, or acquiring the said official or private cars since 1896. What amount has been expended in maintaining, using and operating the said official or private cars since 1896. including interest on cost of construction or acquisition. Whether such cars are always used for official purposes ; if not, for what purposes, and for what other occasions the official or private cars of the government have been otherwise used during the past four years. For what purposes and on what occasions the official or private cars of the government have been used since the first day of January, 1900. And by whom each such car was used on each such occasion, and at what cost, and to what place each such car was despatched ; and how many miles it travelled on each such occasion. How many official or private cars are now in
course of construction for the government ; and the cost of each of them. Whether since the first of January, 1900, the official or private cars owned by the country have been used by others than ministers or officials of the government. And if so, the occasions, by whom, at what cost, for what purposes, and under what rules and regulations. Whether any of the official or private cars have been used by the ministers or officials of the government, or by any other persons, for unofficial or private purposes, since the first of January, 1900, If so, by whom, on whose authority, under what regulations or arrangement, on how manv occasions, and at what cost to the country, each car has been used.
William Stevens Fielding: The other day, tha Minister of Railways, in answer to a question, intimated that some portion of this information could probably not be furnished, because there were no records which would enable it to be furnished, but so far as there are records there is no reason why the information should not he brought down. i would suggest to the hon. gentleman the wisdom of broadening the scope of the motion so that this information might cover a period since 1878. I would suggest that where the figures * 1896 ' or ' 1900 ' appear in the motion the figures 11878 ' should be substituted, and in that form there could he no objection to this motion. The information would be brought down so far as the records of the office contain such information.


Mr. INGRAM.: Would that include up to 1903 ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, up to date.


Haughton Lennox: I do not know what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Tolton) would do if he were here, and I have no instructions from him. I understood the Minister of Railways to say that the information would be brought down if moved for as it was too voluminous to be put in the form of a reply to a question. In the absence of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Tolton) I am not in a position to say anything.


William Stevens Fielding: Does the hon. gentleman agree to the amendment, or does he wish the motion to stand ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We would prefer it to stand.


William Stevens Fielding: Very good.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The motion stands.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For copies of documents, memorials, plans and reports of surveyors, and corespondence in relation to the dredging of Baie la VallRre. -Mr. Bruneau.
For a return showing the number of pounds of butter and cheese which have been manufactured at the Dotninion dairy station at Nappan, N.S., in each of the last three years. Also for a statement showing the cost of such
[Stage Direction]
cheese and butter in each year ; giving the items which enter into such total cost, and also showing the cost of manufacture and the cost of marketing per pound, by years.-Mr. Bell-by Mr. Sproule.
For copies of all correspondence, accounts and statements showing the cost of the buildings at Mabou, and at other points, which are used in connection with the creamery at Mabou, C.B.; the cost of the machinery, and the rental paid by the government ; the salaries paid by the government ; the price paid for milk and cream by the government ; the quantity of butter manufactured in each year ; the cost per pound of butter in each year ; the price at which such butter has been sold each year ; the government charge for manufacturing and marketing.-Mr. Bell-by Mr. Sproule.
For copies of all Orders in Council passed under and by virtue of the Statute 3- Edward VII., chapter 53, entitled ' An Act respecting the management and control of public and other works.-Mr. Casgrain-by Mr. Sproule.
For a return of all maps, plans and engineers' reports, and other correspondence, relating in any way to the navigation of the Saskatchewan river, Winnipegosis, Cedar and Cumberland lakes ; also the amounts of moneys expended on the same.-Mr. Davis-by Mr. Talbot.
For copies of all letters or petitions received by or sent to the Department of Public Works, or such other departments as received the same, in connection with the dredging and deepening the channel to the landing at Beaton, B.C., on the Upper Lardeau.-Mr. Casgrain-by Mr. Sproule.
For copies of the letters of resignation of the following officers of the 9th Regiment of the active militia, addressed to Lt.-Colonel Evan-turel :-Majors Routhier and Ouellet ; Captains Chabot, Belleau, Matte, Dessaint, P. T. Trudel and J. R. Trudel ; Lieutenants Edm. Trudel, J. A. Beaulieu, F. X. Halle and A. Grenier ; and of all correspondence between these officers and the Department of Militia regarding the said resignations.-Mr. Casgrain-by Mr. Sproule.
For copies of all petitions, memorials, letters and other correspondence between certain fishermen and any other party or parties, relating to any of the subject-matters contained in an official letter of the Honourable Minister of Marine and Fisheries, dated the 22nd of April, 1904, with regard to the authorization of the new lobster-canning licenses on the eastern coast of Prince Edward Island.-Mr. Lefurgey.
For a return giving the number of chicken-fattening stations in operation in Prince Edward Island in the years 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, respectively, giving the locations of each, and the names of manager of each, for the respective years ; the expenditure in each of these stations for the years named, and the refunds made from the sale of poultry, &e. ; stating separately the refund from each for the different years.-Mr. Lefurgey.
For a return giving a statement in detail of the expenditures on Hillsboro' bridge, Prince Edward Island, and Murray Harbour Branch Railway, Prince Edward Island, contained in an amount of $1,492,525.47, stated by the Minister of Finance, in ' Hansard ' of 1903, page 12829, to have been expended on these two works up to 30th June, 1903 :
Expenditure on Murray Harbour branch : (a) surveys ; (b) legal expenses, names of persons to whom paid, and amount to each ; (c) land damages, names of persons to whom paid, and The SPEAKER.
amount to each ; (d) grading and ballasting ; (e) track-laying ; (f) fencing ; (g) equipment ; and any other expenditure under other headings to make up the total expenditure to June 30th, 1903.	,
Expenditure on Hillsboro' bridge : (a) surveys ; (b) cost of approaches, giving land damages, and to whom paid ; (c) cost of substructures ; (d) cost of superstructures ; (e) legal expenses, to whom paid, and amount to each.
And also a detailed statement as above, showing the application of the sum of $1,230,000, mentioned by the Minister of Finance in ' Hansard,' 1903, page 12829, to be expended ; statements on railway and bridge separately.-Mr. Lefurgey.
For a return showing :-
How many buildings are leased, rented, or occupied by the government, other than those owned by the government, in the city of Ottawa. Where the said buildings are situated, and by whom they are owned respectively. The term of the lease in each instance. The amount of rental or compensation paid by the government to the owner in each instance-Mr. Taylor-by Mr. Sproule.
For copies of all correspondence between the government and any of its officials and the secretary of the Provincial Board of Health of Manitoba, relating to matters of quarantine, or to restrict the spread of infectious diseases, since January the 1st, 1902.-Mr. W. J. Roche.
For copies of all correspondence with and by the government, or any department thereof, or with the officials of any department of the government, relating to applications for employment on the surveys of the proposed National Transcontinental Railway ; also for all correspondence with the Grand, Trunk Railway Company of Canada, or the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, in relation to such applications.'-Mr. Clarke.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on the following proposed resolution :
' That it is expedient to bring in a Bill to prohibit the importation, manufacture, and sale of cigarettes.'-Mr. W. S. Maclaren.
Resolution reported and read the first time.
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: When shall the resolution be read the second time and agreed to?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Now.


Charles Fitzpatrick: To-morrow.


An hon. MEMBER.: We are all here now.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, we are not all here. I object.
Order allowed to stand.


RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On the order being called for :
Resuming adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fitzpatrick, that Bill (No. 2) an Act to amend the Railway Act, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.
Robert Laird Borden: The Prime Minister, I I understood, agreed that this Bill should go

to the Committee of the Whole House first, and said that he should insist that it should afterwards go to the Railway Committee.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is no objection to that if the hon. gentleman wishes it.


William Findlay Maclean: Is it the policy of the government, then, to send to the Railway Committee their Bill amending the Railway Act ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: That will depend on the character of the Bill when it is brought down.


William Findlay Maclean: But there are uot to be two kinds of treatment in this House. If that applies to a Bill introduced by the government, it must also apply to a Bill introduced by a private member. I have a Bill to amend the Railway Act, and I want it discussed in the Committee of the Whole House where the original Bill was discussed last year. I gather from what the hon. Minister of Justice has said that, there are to be two ways of discussing Bills to amend the Railway Act: a Bill introduced by the government is to be discussed by the Committee of the Whole House, but a Bill introduced by a private member is to-be sent to the Railway Committee. If my Bill is to be sent to the Railway Committee, I know what the object of the government is in sending it there-it is to smother the measure as they smothered my Bill of last session with reference to telephones. I object to this kind of treatment. It is not in the public interest that a Bill of this kind should be referred to the Railway Committee.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood that there would be no objection to withdrawing this motion and sending the Bill to the Committee of the Whole House at once.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend having made a statement that it was arranged with the Prime Minister that this motion should be withdrawn, and that the Bill should be referred to the Committee of the Whole House, I of course, concur in that. I ask leave to withdraw this motion.
Motion withdrawn.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I move that the Bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee.
On section 1,
Charles Fitzpatrick: I understood that this was referred to the committee simply for the purpose of having some discussion on it, and that the decision of the House was that it was subsequently to be referred to the Railway Committee.


Robert Laird Borden: The arrangement, as I understood, was that it be referred
to the Committee of the Whole House without any prejudice to moving afterwards that it should go to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I was not here when the matter was arranged with the Prime Minister.


Robert Laird Borden: That was what I understood. On the other hand, my hon. friend from Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) did not want to commit himself to agreeing that it should go there ; but the Prime Minister intimated that it must go to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines. Therefore, I understand that there is to be perfect liberty to the government to take that course afterwards.


Mr. LANCASTER.: As it is some weeks since this Bill was read a second time, perhaps it might not be improper for me to discuss shortly, the principle of it. The first amendment is to strike out the word ' or ' and insert the word ' and.' That is because the Act as passed makes it quite lawful for the railway company either to fence their track or protect it. The courts have decided that the fencing of a track consists in the fencing of the right of way ending at the cattle-guards, but that is no protection whatever to the highway. So that when a railway company is only bound to do that, it is not bound to protect the people on the highway at all. If the company should be sued for not protecting the highway, it would simply answer : We are not bound to protect, we are only bound to fence the track, and we have fenced the right of way on each side, and turned the fence into the cattle-guard. Consequently we are not liable, notwithstanding the fact that the people on the highway are not protected against passing trains at all. That is the first amendment I seek to make. The hon. gentleman asks me why I will not strike out the words * fenced or,' so as to bind the companies simply to protect ? My reason is this. Protecting has been decided by the Supreme Court to be such as the commission will order and none other, and I seek to have the Act itself declare what shall constitute protection, so that you will not have to go to the Railway Committee, but will find the definition in the section itself, but of course we'want fencing as well. I want to remind the House of what I said on the second reading. My amendment proposes :
And wherever in a city, town or incorporated village a railway crosses a highway at rail level, the said speed of ten miles an hour shall in no event be exceeded, unless the railway company keeps a watchman at such crossing to warn all persons using the highway of approaching trains.
Unless such an amendment be passed, the Railway Act is absolutely nugatory as re-

gards this matter. In the early sections ol the Act all power is given the Railway Commission to order special protection at any place. This is a general provision requiring that .there shall be some measure of protection at all places. The draughtsman of the Act and its promoters understood and . intended that this section was for the purpose of giving In every case protection of some kind to the wayfarer along the highway, so that it would not be necessary for every little village to have, in every case, to get a special order from the Railway Commission to protect the crossing. Last session the rate of speed was increased from six to ten miles an hour. It was argued by the ex-Minister of Railways, Mr. Blair, that as the exigencies of public travel required now a greater rate of speed, it was not unwise to let that rate be increased, without protection at all, to ten instead of six miles an hour. I want to emphasize the fact that there is in my Act no requirement on the railways at all to put any watchman at a crossing if they keep within ten miles an hour. But the Supreme Court has decided, since the General Railway Act was consolidated and amended last session, that notwithstanding this rate of ten miles an hour-it was six in the case before the coui't, that of McKay vs. the Grand Trunk-because there was no order from the Railway Commission, the company was not negligent in not having watchmen even when the train ran at twenty miles an hour. The plaintiffs in that case succeeded in all the Ontario courts and succeeded in convincing one of the judges of the Supreme Court. Two decided to upset the Ontario decision and agreed on what their judgment should be, but the third agreed to set aside the judgment for another reason entirely. There was accord in the decisions of the provincial courts. Judge McMahon decided for the plaintiffs, and his decision was upheld unanimously by the Court of Appeal. There were five judges of the Ontario courts and one of the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Girouard, in favour of the plaintiffs, and of the three Supreme Court judges against him. one of them, Mr. Justice Sedgewick, did not decide to maintain the appeal on the same ground at all. Should we not have some protection at every crossing in the thickly settled portions of the country ? That was always contemplated. The object always was that there should be no rate of speed exceeding six miles an hour-now it is ten-without some protection. The words of the old statute were ' unless the track is properly fenced.' The Supreme Court decided that fencing up to the highway and then turning into the cattle-guards was all that was required. But what protection does that give to a man on the highway ? You have the whole highway unprotected, yet the regulations contemplated a rate of speed crossing a highway kept down to six miles an hour. Why not let them run a hundred miles an hour Mr. LANCASTER.
if you are not going to protect the people on the highways 7 You must have some protection to travellers, whether in farm wagons, or buggies, or bicycles, or automobiles, or whether they are children going to school, or people walking to or from their work in the thickly settled portions. Some gentlemen may say : Why the thickly peopled portion 1 Because our law has always recognized this principle. Our parliaments, applying their common sense from time to time to this question, have decided that it is necessary for the safety of individuals that in cities, towns and villages, where, owning to the noises, you cannot hear a train coming, and where the view of it is apt to be obstructed, precautions must be taken to prevent loss of life.


Andrew B. Ingram: What protection have they now ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: None, under the decision of the Supreme Court. But they may get protection by coming to the Railway Commission and getting a special older with regard to any particular crossing, in any city, town or village. But, special application must be made for a special order with regard to every crossing. What we want is what we understood we had under the law, and what the Court of Appeal of Ontario understood was the law, a general provision applying to all cities, towns and villages that, where other safeguards are not present, the rate of speed shall be kept dowTn. WThat sense is there in having in the statute a provision that they shall not run at more than ten miles an hour unless there is some way to enforce that provision ? It would be far more logical to strike out the whole section as a mere anomaly, unless there is some way to reverse or get over the decision of the Supreme Court. If my amendment passes, a general provision will be made applying to all crossings. Of course, it will still be within the power of the Railway Commission to make special order for any cases in which application is made to them. But, even where special application is not made, the people of every city, town and village will have the protection either of the slowing down of the speed to ten miles an hour or of the presence of a watchman to warn people of the passing of the trains.


Andrew B. Ingram: But the Railway Commission can limit it to less than ten miles an hour.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am not taking away from the board any power that they now have. This is a general provision applying to every crossing in a city, town or villagegiving the people the right to have a watchman at a crossing or to have the train pass the crossing at not more than ten miles an hour. It is no hardship to the railway company. If they wish to keep down to ten miles an hour, it will not be necessary for

them to provide a watchman. And, if they wish to run faster they can run as fast as they like, if they keep a watchman there. The expense would probably be $2.50 or $3 a day at each crossing of a railway. That is all that is required, a watchman in the day and a watchman at night. They do not even need to provide one for each side of the track, but merely to have at each crossing at which the trains run faster than ten miles an hour, a man whose business it will be to know when the trains are coming and to warn people who may not hear because of the noises of the town and may not see because of intervening objects.


Mr INGRAM.: Can the board rule that it is necessary to put on a watchmanan ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, they can. The representatives of any. city, town or village can come specially to Ottawa and ask the board to have a watchman appointed for a particular crossing. But what I am asking is, as parliament has provided with regard to all crossings in cities, towns and villages that trains shall not run faster than ten miles an hour unless precautions are taken for safety, that this should be enforced and the company that fails to observe the law be made liable for damages. This will avoid the necessity of making application in every case. For instance, in the town of Grimsby in my county there are two crossings of the Grand Trunk, one overhead and one on the level. The representatives of the town would have to come to Ottawa and ask the Railway Commission for a special order- practically they would have to engage in a law-suit-before they could get with regard to that crossing what this amendment would provide with regard to aid crossings. In Port Dalhousie, there are three or four crossings, one of them very dangerous, while the others are more or less dangerous. The representatives of any village would have to come here and apply to the Railway Commission for an order with regard to each particular crossing. Railways are entitled to make their schedules of time between cities. For instance, the express trains go through between Hamilton and St. Catharines. They are entitled to run at forty-five miles an hour, and do not stop between those cities. They run through Jordan, Beamsville, Grimsby, Stoney Creek and Winona. Two of these are incorporated villages and three are not. Those that are incorporated would be entitled, under this amendment, to have a watchman at the crossing. A year ago last December three people in Grimsby were hurled into eternity as they were returning from church in the evening, being run down by a train running at forty-five miles an hour, the approach of which they could not hear. Those people could have applied to the Railway Commission and got an order limiting the rate of speed, but why should they have done so ? *
The statute, as everybody understands it, provided that the trains should not exceed a certain rate of speed at these crossings- formerly six miles an hour, and, under the amendment of last year, ten miles an hour. But the Supreme Court says that, notwithstanding what the statute says about it, unless you have an order from the Railway Commission you cannot get protection. I do not wish to detain the committee, for I realize that if anything is said in the course of the discussion with which I do not agree I shall have an opportunity to answer. We have spent a great deal of time and have just concluded a railway matter which seems to me not of so much benefit to the country as this. I think we might as well get down to this and try and protect the people's lives a little better.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN (Halifax), I might say a few words at the same time, and perhaps the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) when he rises, will answer the considerations that I shall bring forward. The difficulty that occurs to me on looking at the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Grand Trunk vs. McKay, which will be binding on the provincial courts unless the statute is altered or the decision is overruled by the Privy Council, is this ; so long as the railway company has its track fenced according to the requirements of the Railway Act, it can run through any town or thickly populated village at any speed it may see fit. That seems to be the effect of the' decision. The question arises what is proper fencing of the track, and the Supreme Court of Canada decided that it is duly fenced if there is a fence along the line of adjoining properties and if the fence is turned into the cattle guards in the manner prescribed by the statute. That being so, it does not seem that the restriction provided in section 227 of the Act of last year is of much value. In the case of the Grand Trunk vs. McKay, which is reported in XXXIV., Supreme Court of Canada, page 81, the findings of the jury were :
1st. Was the whistle blown before reaching the main street crossing, and if so, at what distance from the crossing was it first sounded ?
A. Yes, at the whistling post.
2nd. If the bell was rung, where did it first commence to ring, and was it ringing continuously or at short intervals until the engine crossed the street -where the accident happened?
A. Bell starte_d to ring east of Main street eight or ten rods, and rang continuously.
3rd. Is the Main street crossing at Forest in a thickly peopled portion of the village ?
A. Yes.
4th. At what rate of speed was the engine running at the time it crossed Main street ?
A. About twenty miles an hour.
5th. Was such a rate of speed, in your opinion, a dangerous rate of speed for such locality ?
A. Yes.	[DOT]
6th. Was the death of Mrs. McKay and the injury to Joseph McKay caused in consequence

of any neglect or omission of the company ?
If so, what was the neglect or omission, in your opinion, which caused the accident ?
A. (a) Yes. (b) Neglect in running too fast and for the neglect of a flagman or gates.
Upon these findings the Supreme Court ol' Canada held that the railway company was entitled to judgment and judgment was entered accordingly reversing the judgment of the Ontario Court. Therefore it appears from the judgment of the highest court in the land that although a railway company is running an engine at a dangerous rate of speed through thickly settled portions of a village, nevertheless if they ring their bell and sound their whistle they are not responsible for any damage that may be occasioned to the people using the crossing. Mr. Justice Sedgewick deals with the section now incorporated in the Railway Act, and he goes on to point out the difference between our Railway Act and the provisions of a similar enactment in Great Britain. Before quoting him,
I may say that his argument is that the railway company has no authority to erect any gates or take any other precautions without some statutory sanction, and he says :
It must he apparent then that there must be some authority given to a railway company before it can assume to erect gates upon a highway. This authority is to be found in the Railway Act, 51 Victoria, Chapter 29, section 187 (old Act) and it will be seen that it was in the view of the parliament of Canada necessary to give express authority when we look at the wording of the section.
Then he goes on to quote the section ns follows :
And the Railway Committee if it deems it expedient or necessary for the public safety, may from time to time, with the sanction of the Governor in Council, authorize or require the company to which such railway belongs, within such time as the said committee directs, to protect such street or highway by a watchman, or by a watchman and gates or other protection.
After quoting that he continues as follows :
This is made apparent as well by looking at the English Statute. In the year 1845 was passed the first of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Acts, and this is still in force,, being 8 and 9 Victoria, chapter 20.
Section 47 provided as follows :-
If the railway cross any turnpike or road or public carriage road on a level, the company shall erect and at all times maintain good and sufficient gates across such road, on each side of the railway where the same shall communicate therewith and shall employ proper persons to open and shut such gates.
That seems to be a provision applicable in Great Britain to all crossings of a public highway and what I would submit to the Minister of Justice is that to ensure proper safety to the public it would seem a proper thing and I would think-subject to bearing the persons interested-a fair thing ' Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
that in cities, towns and villages, in thickly settled portions of our country those precautions which prevail everywhere in England should prevail in this country in those special instances, because if something of that kind Is not done my hon. friend the Minister of Justice will see that so long as a train of a railway company blows its whistle and rings its bell when passing through a thickly populated town or village, if the track is fenced along the line and turned Iti to the cattle-guards at crossings, the train can run through any city, town or village at any rate which may seem good to the persons who are managing the train. I should think that probably some restriction upon that which is held by the Supreme Court of Canada to be an absolute right, ought to be imposed by parliament. I am not criticising the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. Perhaps their judgment might be open to some observation, but until it is corrected either by the Privy Council or by parliament, it will undoubtedly remain the law of this country.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 
Robert Laird Borden: Oh, yes.
-Mr. FITZPATRICK. I would be glad if my hon. friend would point that out.


Robert Laird Borden: There is exactly the same provision as that which is contained in the old Act, section 119.
The company shall erect and maintain on the railway fences, gates and cattle-guards, as follows :-
Then (a), (b), and-
(c) Cattle-guards, on each side of the highway, at every highway crossing at rail level by the railway. The railway fences at every such crossing shall be turned into the respective cattle-guards on each side of the highway.
This is exactly the old provision, but there may be something in what the Minister of Justice says with regard to the words 'properly protected.' Without those words I do not see any difference between this Act and the old Act. If the Minister of Justice will show me what office these words ' properly protected ' can or wrill fill, I will be glad.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The words ' properly protected ' leave the matter as a question of fact to be determined as to what would be a proper protection under the circumstances existing in each particular case. My hon. friend will realize-


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend will observe the words ' fenced and properly protected ' are qualified by the words ' in the manner prescribed by this Act.' Therefore you have to look into the Act for that. If you do not find something besides fencing it seems to me you are in the same position as you were before the substitution of the new enactment. I do not know whether I make myself quite clear to my hon. friend.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, quite.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Supreme Court decided that the protection provided by the old Act was the right to come before the Railway Committee and get an order for protection. I am pointing out that even if the word ' protected ' is contained
in the Railway Act the Supreme Court has decided that this word means that you may get an order for protection and not otherwise.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Section 227 of the Railway Act provides that a train shall not run at a greater speed than ten miles an hour-
Unless the track is fenced or properly protected in the manner prescribed by this Act.
There is a difference, of course, in the dangers to which people are exposed at crossings. The question varies according to the protection necessary at particular crossings. At one place an overhead bridge would be necessary, in another place a gate would be all that would be required and in another place it might be sufficient to have a watchman. I have in my mind a ease in Quebec where it would be absolutely absurd to have anything in the shape of such protection as is required here. If my hon. friend will look at section 25 of the Act, he will see that it provides that the . board may make orders and regulations, absolutely limiting the rate of speed at each place. All that I have just said is not for the purpose of suggesting that there may not be something to be said in support of the amendment which is presented for our consideration, but it shows the necessity of hastening slowly. There are large public interests that may be affected and it seems to me that the proper course is to refer this matter to the Railway Committee so that we may have expert testimony as to the necessity that may exist in different conditions for protection ivhich may vary according to the conditions under which it is made necessary. We have not the information that is necessary to enable us to come to a conclusion as to the necessity for this legislation.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the hon. the Minister of Justice explain to the committee why it is necessary to have expert testimony before the Railway Committee of the House and not to have expert testimony before the committee of this 'House when we are considering a Bill of this kind.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would be delighted to answer my hon. friend if he would point out how he could secure the evidence.


William Findlay Maclean: We passed this Act in committee last session and we did not have the opinions of experts. \Why does the hon. minister single out this particular case to send to the Railway Committee in order to secure expert evidence ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I think the hon. the Minister of Justice rather insists on this matter. He is speaking about expert testimony. When we considered Bill (No. 21) last year, it was not referred to the Railway Committee in order to take expert testimony upon it, but the hon. the 'Minister of Railways and Canals did need expert testimony upon it

although I do not know that the members of this House benefited very much from the expert testimony. The information that was obtained was used by the ministers themselves.	.


William Findlay Maclean: I am waiting for an answer.


Mri FITZPATRICK.: ' I think 1 have given my hon. friend the best answer I can give him. I do not know how this House can get the expert testimony to which my hon. friend refers.


William Findlay Maclean: Why should this particular amendment go to the Railway Committee so that expert testimony may be had there, when we discussed the whole of this Bill last year without taking any expert testimony 1 Why is this particular amendment to be dealt with in this manner. Why cannot it be dealt with by the Committee of the Whole House ? Why is this discrimination shown in regard to an amendment of this kind ?
Mr. 'FITZPATRICK. I quite remember that last year when this Bill came up, the Minister of Railways and Canals, myself and I think some other gentlemen attended on a conference with all parties interested, with the different railway companies and the transportation companies generally which were affected by the Bill.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I may say in regard to the question of expert testimony that if you were going to apply to the Railway Commission for an order in any particular case where levels aud all that sort of thing are required to be taken, I could understand that exjjert testimony might be required. We want this general law because the railway companies produce expert testimony when the village or the town cannot go to the expense of bringing such testimony. They put the onus on the people. We want parliament to enact that in every case, irrespective of expert testimony where the crossing is at rail level, whether the grade is down or up, or whether the track is straight or curved, the speed at all these crossings shall not exceed ten miles an hour unless there is a watchman. Surely there cannot be any expert testimony necessary to decide that principle. What is the use of sending this Bill to the Railway Committee ? This is simply a question of principle between tile people and the railway companies. Where could you get better experts upon this question than you have in the members of this House who come from the people charged with the duty of enacting laws for the people's protection, being fair to the railways at the same time ? We should enact a law saying that the rate of speed shall not exceed ten miles an hour unless there was a watchman. I do not think there can be any expert testimony on that subject better than the testimony of the members of this House.


Andrew B. Ingram: 


Robert Laird Borden: I would be inclined to think that the words ' unless the track is fenced or properly protected in the manner prescribed by this Act, ' mean unless the track is fenced in the manner prescribed by this Act or properly protected in the manner prescribed by this Act. Then it would seem to me that in so far as fencing is concerned you must look to this Act and looking to this Act you find the provision to which I have already directed the attention of the hon. the Minister of Justice which is contained in section 199. Apart from that is there any protection prescribed by this Act other than fencing ? The hon. the Minister of Justice refers me to section 25 and undoubtedly the board may make orders and regulations limiting the rate of speed. There is another enactment to which attention lias not been called and that is contained in section 186 and section 187 of the Railway Act. By section 186 it is provided that:
Upon any application for leave to construct the railway upon, along, or across an existing highway.	*
And so forth :
The board may by order grant such application upon such terms and conditions as to protection, safety and convenience of the public, as It may deem expedient, or may order that the highway, be carried over or under the railway, or be temporarily or permanently diverted, and that such works be executed, watchmen or other persons employed, or measures taken as under the circumstances appear to the board best adapted to remove or diminish the danger or obstruction arising or likely to arise therefrom.
And by section 187 it is provided that :
Where the railway is already constructed upon, along or across any highway, the board may order the company within a specified time to submit to the board a plan and profile of such portion of the railway, and may, upon such submission, make any order in respect thereto as in the previous section provided.
That would seem to give the board power to order that watchmen should be employed or other precautions taken. But if you come back to section 227 the short question after all is just this ; whether, apart from anything the Railway Commission may do, there is not good reason for making some other general provision than that which is contained in section 227. I would be inclined to think, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, that some further restriction or limit might properly be made. Is there any reason why any railway company should be at liberty to run its trains through cities, towns, or villages, at so great a speed as has been declared to be a lawful rate of speed by the Supreme Court ? I would be inclined to answer that in the negative, and I would also be inclined to think that some portion of the difficulty could be dealt with by a general enactment, while, of course, there may be cases which must be left to the discretion of the Railway Com-

37S6
mission to deal with upon the facts disclosed in these special cases.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Does the last part of the amendment render the first part inoperative V Does proper protection mean the appointment of a watchman ? I think my hon. friend would have considerable difficulty if he were called upon to construe the section in its present form. Under all the circumstances, the better plan for us is to let this section go to the Railway Committee, where we can hear a(ll the parties. For my part, I am willing to be enlightened by experts in the management of railways before I come to a conclusion. As a lawyer, I see a great deal of difficulty in carrying out this amendment.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not see how any railway expert can tell us what this section moans any better than we can understand it ourselves. If the Minister of Justice is right, that the section as drawn by me does not accomplish what I am aiming at, I expect that he-will give me the benefit of his greater knowledge in perfecting it. For my part, 1 would rather take the opinion of the Minister of Justice than any of the railway lawyers which the railway companies will bring before the committee. I may say, however, that I have carefully considered all these decisions, and that I have consulted lawyers much more eminent than myself, and they agree that I have accomplished what I want to accomplish by the words I have used, and that the language in the latter part of the section does not render the former part nugatory, but is simply additional. The Supreme Court has said that protection means any special order which the Railway Committee will give, and surely no judge can hesitate about the meaning of the language of my amendment. It says in plain words that in addition to what protection is required by the Railway Committee, railways shall not go at a speed more than ten miles an hour in the places indicated unless they have watchmen. I have the statements of, I suppose, thirty lawyers, of all sides of politics and all ages, and they all approve of this amendment as securing the necessary protection.


Andrew B. Ingram: When last year the Act was amended so as to allow trains to run ten miles an hour instead of six, I drew attention to the fact that the railway companies were violating the law every day. If you refer to the time cards of the various railway companies, you will see that they cannot respect the ten-mile-an-hour law through thickly populated districts and make the time indicated on the running cards.' This amendment means that the railway must be properly fenced and protected when the speed exceeds ten miles an hour, and that in addition to that protection they shall put on a watchman in thickly populated districts. That provision will certainly protect the public, although it may entail expense
on the railway companies. Every day there are accidents in villages and towns throughout Canada, caused by the excessive speed of trains, and when these accidents are investigated the railway companies fall back on their rules, which, they say, the employee neglected ; and so the employee is discharged, although if he did carry out the rules of the company he would also be discharged because he had not made the time called for by the running card. Railway employees and the public should not be placed in that position ; if there is any risk to be taken the railway company should take it.


William Findlay Maclean: Has the Minister of Justice received any protest from the railway companies in regard to this amendment ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Lancas ter) is intended only to apply to the speed of trains while crossing the highway.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The words ' thickly populated ' were not in the old Act; this section raises all sorts of difficulties.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand some of the difficulties it raises, but the objection of my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) is clearly this. He is not concerned with the rate of speed at which a train passes through a city, town or incorporated village, so long as the railway is properly fenced, except when it is crossing a highway ; and he wants the law so amended that while the train is crossing that highway its speed must not exceed ten miles an hour unless there is a watchman or some other proper protection provided.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I might say that is why I used the word ' wherever ' meaning ' at that place.'


Charles Fitzpatrick: Does my hon.
friend think that is the construction to be put on the language he uses ? Does that cover simply the crossing, or is it used generally?


Robert Laird Borden: It could be made perfectly plain by inserting after the word * exceeding ' the words ' at such a crossing.'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am agreeable.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is not my main difficulty. My difficulty is that you have the indefinite words ' thickly peopled portion,' which leaves the whole matter open to a construction which might bear harshly on the people of the locality. Then you have this other difficulty, that you insist on the road being fenced; then you insist on a watchman being placed at each mossing ; and, in addition to that, you provide that the Railway Commission may add anything else it chooses. Under any-

circumstances you insist on the railway company having a watchman, although there may be many cases where a watchman would not be necessary. My view' is that we ought to hear the objections, !t there are any, of the railway companies to this legislation, so that we may be able to determine how far, if necessary, this language should be modified, and whether we should not leave the Railway Commission to deal w'ith each case on its merits. As at present advised, I see no reason why the matter should not be left in the hands of the Railway Commission to deal with. However, I am willing that the Bill should go to the Railway Committee, when it is fully discussed and considered there, we shail be able to decide whether we should adopt this amendment as it is or with some verbal modification, or leave the matter to the decision of the Railwmy Commission.


Mr. BLAIN.: One of the difficulties is that w'hen the question of the better protection of railway crossings is taken before the Railwmy Committee of the Privy Council new the Railway Commission, the decision usually is that part of the cost must be borne by the municipalities.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think the commission is perfectly free to determine the question of the cost absolutely.


Richard Blain: I think it should be compulsory on the railway company to bear the total cost of protecting a dangerous mossing in thickly settled localities. Between the city of Toronto and the city of Hamilton, there are frequent fast trains on the line of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. The Canadian Pacific has running rights over the tracks of the Grand Trunk between those cities, and the two railway companies run trains between the two cities in 55 minutes, which is more than 40 miles an hour, through prosperous and thickly settled villages. My own town brought this matter to the attention of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council in days gone by. The municipalities understand that where they are willing to pay a portion of the cost, watchmen may be put on ; but the municipalities feel that when the railway companies have so many rights as they have in this country, they should be compelled to pay the total cost. Now, that this matter is up, I think it is the duty of the Minister of Justice to have It thoroughly thought out and to see that proper legislation is enacted, so that better protection shall be provided at railway crossings, and that it shall be paid for by the railway companies.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I move that the committee rise and report to the House the recommendation that the Bill be referred to the Railway Committee.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like to have an assurance from the Minister of Justice Mr. FITZPATRICK.
that the Bill will come back to the Committee of the Whole House, so as to be reached again this session. It deals with existing and growing evils, many people being killed at these crossings. Bearing in mind that the premier has given notice of a motion to take Wednesdays and Thursdays from private members, and that the law cannot be changed until the question is taken up in the House again, I think the Minister of Justice should assure me that although private members' days may be withdrawn, the Bill will be placed on government orders, and will be dealt with this session.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is perfectly fair. The report of the Railway Committee will be dealt with, and I will undertake to ask the Prime Minister that the matter should be dealt with on government orders.


William Findlay Maclean: Do I understand the Minister of Justice to say that this and all other amendments to the railway' law will be dealt with on government orders ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would be glad if the hon. gentleman would allow me to deal with one thing at a time.


William Findlay Maclean: I want to know if the hon. gentleman is laying down a general principle. There are a great many orders in the Railway Committee, and this may not be reached for three or four weeks.


William Stevens Fielding: We hope to be away by that time.


William Findlay Maclean: But we may not. If the government want to get away soon, their best plan would be to have all these amendments to the Railway Act submitted to the Committee of the House. The government have a Bill dealing with the Railway Act, why not mass these amendments and let us have a field day upon the Act ? But if we are to be jollied along by having them sent to the Railway Committee, where they will be held up three or four weeks, no headway will be made. We can delay other business in order that we may be given the opportunity of dealing with these amendments. I hope the minister will see that it is advisable to have all these amendments to the Railway Act massed into one order and considered. My hon. friend introduced his Bill the first day parliament met, and for two months he has been ready to go on with it if given the opportunity. This is the first opportunity he has had, and his Bill is now passed over to the Railway Committee. It will be at the foot of the list and may not be heard of again for six weeks.
Progress reported.
Mr. FITZPATRICK moved that the order be discharged and the Bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not think this is good policy, and as I propose to discuss this motion, I call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock Mouse took recess.
After Eeeess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Findlay Maclean: Just before dinner I made a suggestion to the Minister of Justice that I did not think it quite fair sending this Bill to the Railway Committee.	I think it would he better to
send it to the Committee of the Whole House, together with a Bill that I have to amend the Railway Act and the government's Bill to amend the Railway Act, and then we could have all these Bills discussed under one order. I think that in that way we could facilitate the consideration of these amendments to the Railway Act and dispose of all in one or two days' discussion. Even if we 'refer this Bill to the Railway Committee, it would have to come back to this House, and, in the meantime, probably no progress would have been made. It might be referred to a sub-committee and much time occupied. Of course I have to accept the judgment of the House, especially in case of this Bill of the hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster), and I will have to see what I can do with my own Bill when it comes up. But my suggestion would lie that all these orders relating to the Railway Act should be referred to the Committee of the Whole rather than to the Railway Committee.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think it is very desirable to get rid of this particular Bill that we are now dealing with. The definite suggestion contained in the Bill of the hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara, it seems to me should be dealt with. He has shown the necessity for serious consideration of his Bill. For that reason, I would like to have it considered by the Railway Committee. I would like to see my hon. friend's (Mr. Maclean's) Bill considered on its merits when it comes up. I have not had an opportunity to consider that Bill at ail fully. It may be that it will commend itself to the House when it comes up, but at present I would not like to commit myself one way or the other.
Motion (Mr. Fitzpatrick) agreed to.


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Lancaster that Bill (No. 3) to amend the Criminal Code. 1892. be now read the second time.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I suppose the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) does not wish to
take up the time of the House with a discussion of this Bill in view of what he said on a previous occasion about bringing in a Bill to amend the Criminal Code, and putting off the discussion of this Bill until then. 1 suppose he will agree with me that it would be merely a waste of time, if he is going to bring In a Bill to amend the Criminal Code, to go on with the discussion now. I am quite ready for the discussion, if he desires to go on. but if it is to be postponed, I would be very glad if he would indicate when his Bill would probably be brought in. I am being pressed in this matter by people outside.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would prefer that we discuss this Bill now. I think there are points in it that should be considered. If I am to bring in a Bill-as I intended to do, though I cannot commit mself definitely just now -I think we should have the discussion on this Bill now. I would be prepared to go some length to meet the wishes of my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster).


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have already spoken on the second reading. That was a couple of months ago ; still, I suppose 1 cannot speak again without the consent of the House. If the House goes into committee on the Bill, however. I can discuss it then.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read a second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
1.	Section 786 of the Criminal Code, 1892, is amended by adding thereto the following subsection :-
' 2. Whenever the person charged appears to be about the age of twenty-one years or an infant under that age, and is not represented by counsel present at the time, the magistrate shall not proceed under this section without first asking the person charged what his age is ; and if such person then states his age as being less than twenty-one years, the magistrate shall defer any further action, and shall at once cause notice to be given to the parents, living in the province (or if none, then to the guardian or householder with whom the person charged resided at the time of the alleged commission of the offence), of such person having been so charged, and of the time and place when such person wTill be called on to make his election as to whether he will be tried by the said magistrate,-which notice shall allow reasonable time for the said parents, guardian or householder to be present and advise the said person charged before he is called on to so elect.'
Charles Fitzpatrick: In the first place, it seems to me, this section should be made a substantive section and not part of the other.	Then, I would draw my hon.
friend's attention to the age limit. It seems to me that twenty-one is too advanced an age. I know, in my experience,

of some very accomplished criminals who have not reached the age of twenty-one and who require very little advice so far as the management of their criminal affairs is concerned. I would suggest that the age should be fixed at that of junior offenders -sixteen years. Then, I would suggest some verbal amendments, not of great importance, and would have the section provide how the magistrate is to proceed in cases where there is no parent or guardian.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It seems to me that sixteen is altogether too low an age. Certainly, in our part of the country boys are only leaving school at that age and have not had much time to learn the ways of the world and how they should protect themselves in case they are accused. And, even if, as the minister hints, a lad may be a hardened criminal at nineteen or twenty, I cannot see what harm can be done to the state by allowing his parents to advise him. I do not think there are many hardened criminals in Canada at even twenty-one years of age-I do not think it would be fair to Canadians to say that of our young men and young women. And, even though there may be a very small percentage-even admitting that, though I do not think it would be established-we must legislate for the many and not for the few. But, even in the case of such a one, what harm could come through the operation of this section ? The lad may be susceptible to different treatment from that which he has had. It may be that he has been influenced in the wrong way by his home surroundings ; a step-father' or a step-mother may have made it impossible for him to remain at home, and So he may have been led into trouble. But a father or a mother may influence him for good and save him from a life of crime. The age I have suggested is that up to which, according to the law of all the provinces, I believe, a youth is protected as to his property, and I do not think it is too much to say that this liberty should be protected by the advice of his natural guardian at least up to the same age. However, we live in an age of compromises, and in deference to the views of the Minister of Justice. I would suggest that eighteen years would be low enough. It would be pretty hard if a lad of a little over sixteen years should be called upon to elect before a magistrate to say who should try him. He cannot be very much versed in the affairs of the world at that age, and, while I think that twenty-one years would be none too high, I think that eighteen years is as low an age as should be fixed. Up to that age a boy or girl is only a child and cannot be expected to have sound judgment in such a momentous crisis of life. I would think it ought to be at least eighteen. Now as to the case where there is no parent I would ask the Minister Mr. FITZPATRICK.
of Justice if he does not think my Bill deals with that, or does he mean that It does not deal with it sufficiently ? The Bill reads :
-shall at once cause notice to be given to the parents, living in the province (or if none, then to the guardian or householder with whom the person charged resided.
So if there is no guardian or parent, where the boy or girl is living as a domestic servant, or residing under some roof-as they must do-it is then provided that the householder where they are living at the time of the alleged commission of the offence must be notified.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If there is no appearance on the notice, what is the proceeding V
Mr. LANCASTER, I mean that if no one appears, householder, parent or guardian, the magistrate goes on. The section I am amending is providing the process for the magistrate to go on and deal with the case, and my amendment requires that before h2 goes on these things shall take place :
' 2. Whenever the person charged appears to be about the age of twenty-one years or an infant under that age, and is not represented by counsel present at the time, the magistrate shall not proceed under this section without first asking

The effect of that would be that if he does these things he could proceed, if he causes such notice to be given.
-of the time and place when such person will be called on to make his election as to whether he will be tried by the said magistrate, which notice shall allow reasenable time for the said parents, guardian or householder to be present and advise the said person charged before he is called on to so elect.
Now, the meaning that I attached to this when I wrote it was that whether they appear or do not appear he could proceed. That is why I stopped at that point, but if the Minister of Justice thinks we should add the -words ' and if no appearance is made he can proceed,' I am content.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That was simply a suggestion to make it more complete. Would my hon. friend point out to me why he distinguishes with respect to the age limit as between the Juvenile Offenders' Act and this Act ? Under that Act, section 110, the age limit is fixed at 16. I can see no good reason why we should distinguish between the two. If a boy of 16, under the Juvenile Offenders' Act, can plead guilty, I cannot see any reason why he should not plead at the same age in the case in hand.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Under the Juvenile Offenders' Act there is a different proceeding. The trial is practically in camera. The child is not treated as a public criminal, but has safeguards about him. The trial must be in private, and the offender is not

advertised as a criminal, as these would be under the general clause I am proposing to amend. Nor is his punishment the same. If he were a juvenile offender he would have a trial in camera, which he does not get under this section. I might point this out also : the juvenile offender under 16 has a protection somewhat of this kind, but not quite as fully and distinctly stated as, I trust, mine is. It contains the words that the magistrate, before concluding proceedings, shall ask whether he wants to be tried by him, or his guardian or parent, if present. Those are about the casual words used. I am not amending that section now, but there is no reason why mine should not pass, if mine is better drawn. Mine is more explicit than the Juvenile Offenders' Act. Under the Juvenile Offenders' Act he is not treated as a criminal, he is not treated so publicly nor punished in the same way.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I cannot very well see the distinction between the two cases. Juvenile offenders are not treated in camera to my knowledge.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Not exactly in camera, but very nearly so ; they are not tried in public.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think my bon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) had better accept the amendment I offer now. and fix the age at 16. It is only tentative, and if afterwards it is found desirable to increase the age to 18 we can do it, but I think on the whole it is fair that we should fix the limit at 16. If my hon. friend accepts that. I would ask him to listen while I make some suggestions with respect to verbal amendments.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am in the judgment of the House : whatever the majority judgment of the House think should be done I am ready to accept, and as nobody in the House seems to care much about this except myself, I must assume that the majority ir with the minister and accept the amendment.	[DOT]


Charles Fitzpatrick: I will read the suggestions. In the first place, I would have it read :
The Criminal Code 1892 is amended by inserting immediately after section 786 thereof the following sections :
Making it a distinct and separate section. Then :
Whenever the person charged appears to he of or about or under the age of 16 years

So as to give the magistrate some discretion.
-and is not represented by counsel present at the time, the magistrate shall not proceed under the next preceding section without first asking the person charged what his age is ; and if such person then states his age as being sixteen years or less, the magistrate shall defer 120


BEVISED
[Stage Direction]
any further action, and shall at once cause notice to be given to the parent or parents of such person, living in the province, if any, or if he has no such parents or if his parents are unknown, then to the guardian or householder, if any, with whom the person ordinarily resides, of such person having been so charged, and of the time and place when such person will be called on to make his election as to whether he will be tried by the said magistrate,-which notice shall allow reasonable time for the said parents, guardian or householder to be present and advise the said person charged before he is called on to so elect.
I may say that these amendments were suggested by a very competent draughtsman to whom I submitted my hon. friend's Bill for consideration, after I decided to accept the principle.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I only ask why the hon. minister leaves out the words ' at the time of the alleged commission of the offence ' ? Would it not prevent difference of opinion as to what is meant by the ' residence ' ? The boy or girl might be taken ten miles away from the scene of the commission of the offence, apparently residing at a different place from where the offence was committed. I had It in my mind's eye that the proper person to come forward and protect the person charged woijld be the person with whom he permanently resided.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think there is something in that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then you leave in the words ' at the time of the alleged commission of the offence ' ?


Robert Laird Borden: I would think a better expression would be :
With whom the person ordinarily or usually resides.
I do not mean both of these words, but some such expression as that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That would be all right. It is the same thing in a few words.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think it would be proper to provide for the case where after notice served there is no appearance by the parent or guardian, and also for the method of service :
2.	At the time fixed by such notice, or, it it appears to the satisfaction of the magistrate that there is no person answering to the definition in the first subsection of this section to be notified thereun'der, or that all reasonable means to give such notice have been taken without success, then at the earliest convenient time, the magistrate shall proceed as in the next preceding section provided, having first, if any person so notified is present, afforded such person an opportunity to advise the person charged before he is called upon to elect.
3.	The notice provided for by this section may be given by registered letter if the person to be notified does not reside in the city, town or municipality where the proceedings are had.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not see any ob-jf ctlon to tliat. I was leaving it to the


EEITION
[Stage Direction]
discretion of the magistrate as to manner of service, whether he should employ a policeman or otherwise.
Robert Laird Borden: I suppose that there is some general provision in the criminal code which would enable the persou charged to be remanded,


Mr FITZPATRICK.: Yes, of course, and also enabling him to be brought up on remand. The magistrate can remand him any time for a period not exceeding eight days.


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER.: It is moved by the lion. Minister of Justice to amend the Bill so as to read as follows:
1 The Criminal Code, 1892, is amended by inserting immediately after section 786 thereol the following sections :-
* 786 A. Whenever the person charged appears to be of or about or under the age of sixteen years, and is not represented by counsel present at the time, the magistrate shall not proceed under the next preceding section without first asking the person charged what his age is ; and if such person then states his age as being sixteen years or less, the magistrate shall defer any further action, and shall at once cause notice to be given to the parent or parents of such person living in the province, if any, or if he has no such parents or if his parents are unknown, then a guardian or householder, if any, with whom he ordinarily resides, of such person having been so charged, and of the time and place when such person will be called on to make his election as to whether he will be tried by the said magistrate, -which notice shall allow reasonable time for the said parents, guardian or householder to be present and advise the said person charged before he is called on to so elect.
2.	At the time fixed by such notice, or, if it appears to the satisfaction of the magistrate that there is no person answering to the definition in the first subsection of this section to be notified thereunder or that all reasonable means to give such notice have been taken without success, then at the earliest convenient time, the magistrate shall proceed as in the next preceding section provided, having first, if any person so notified is present, afforded such person an opportunity to advise the person charged before he is called upon to elect.
3.	The notice provided for by this section may be given by registered letter if the person to be notified does not reside in the city, town or municipality where the proceedings are had.
Amendment (Mr. Fitzpatrick) agreed to.
Bill reported, read th.e third time and passed.


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 56) to amend the Criminal Code, 1892-Mr. Lennox-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
1. Subsection 6 of section 902 of the Criminal Code, 1892, is amended by inserting after the word ' receive ' in the fifth line, the following words :-' and every justice who upon or in connection with, or under colour or pre-Mr. LANCASTER.
tense of, any information, complaint or judicial proceeding or inquiry had or taken before him, exacts, receives, appropriates or retains any fees, moneys or payments 'which he is not by law' authorized to receive or to be paid,'
Haughton Lennox: I ask to amend this section by adding the word ' wilfully ' after the word ' him.' The Minister of Justice has suggested this amendment to me.


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

Mr.  E. A.@: LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara) moved second reading of Bill (No. 4) to amend the Act respecting Certificates to Masters and Mates of Ships.


Mr. PREFONTAINE.: I would ask my hon. friend to suspend the Bill for the present. I am preparing a Bill having in view the consolidation of all the laws concerning the examination of masters and mates. Should it not be ready in time this session, I promise the hon. gentleman that he will have an opportunity of discussing this Bill. I hope to be able to give him that assurance within the course ot this week. This is a very important matter, and I think the hon. gentleman will attain the same end by letting this Bill stand.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have waited since the beginning of the session for this promised Bill, and I have been urged, in fact warned, by persons interested to push this matter through. I am within the judgment of the majority of this House at all times, but in reply to the Minister ot Marine I would say, that we ought to discuss this Bill now and see how far the government will adopt the principle of it. If this were done, I would get rid of some of the responsibility resting upon me. I undertook .to try to get the law amended on the lines of this Bill, and so far as we can learn from the government they don't object to the amendments here proposed. Seeing that the government is moving to take away Wednesdays and Thursdays from private members, I do not care to take the responsibility of letting the matter stand. From the statement made by the Minister ot Marine there appears to be some doubt whether he will bring his Bill down this session, and the opportunity he promises of discussing this Bill might come at the er.d of the session when some gentlemen who take an interest in the Bill might not be here. I will undertake to be here until the end of the session because I am nearly always here from the beginning to the end, but It does not follow that other hon. gentlemen will know when this Bill is coming up, and be able to be here.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Perhaps I have not made myself clear. I undertake to let the hon. gentleman know during this week whether general consolidation of the laws concerning the examination of masters and mates will be brought down. If we are not ready to bring it down, I promise that the Bill of the hon. gentleman will be called whether as a public Bill or as a government Bill.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Under those circumstances I will not press my Bill now.


Mr. KAULBACH.: I understand that this Bill provides for masters and mates sailing in inland waters. Will the Bill of the hon. Minister of Marine be sufficiently comprehensive to take in masters and mates of sea-going ships ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If I can manage to have a general consolidation of these laws brought down this session, it will certainly cover the whole ground.


Andrew B. Ingram: We understand the Minister of Marine to say that if this Bill stands over, and he does not bring down his Bill, he will promise to give an opportunity to bring this Bill up again, and even to go further, and make it a government measure.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Oh, no.
On motion of Mr. Prefontaine the debate was adjourned.


RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.
Mr.  W. F.@: MACLEAN (East York) moved second reading of Bill (No. 6) to amend the Railway Act, 1903. He said : Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat at a loss how to proceed with the discussion of this Bill. I could get through in a very short time to-night if I had an assurance that fve could go into committee and discuss the Bill clause by clause. The clauses of the Bill are all very different. First of all, I deal with the constitution of the Railway Commission ; then I pass on to the question of telephones, express companies and passenger rates. I would like very much to make an arrangement with the government for a day, so that the House could go into committee and discuss these several amendments. As I cannot get that assurance, I must go on to-,night. The object of the first clause is to bring express companies within the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission. They are not within it to-day, and yet these companies are all powerful in the matter of rates.. As a matter of fact, the express companies in this country are owned by the railway companies. The so-called Dominion Express Company is but a donkey-engine of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; the Canadian Express Company holds the same relation to the Grand Trunk Railway I Company ; the Mackenzie and Mann system has also its express company ; !
120$
and yet, as the law stands to-day all these express companies, in the matter of rates and the way they treat the public, are independent of the Railway Commission. The business men of this country think that if the railway companies and their charges and their treatment of the public, are to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission, so also should the express companies. The great grievance the public have against the railway companies as to which the Railway Act is supposed to afford them protection, is in the matter of unfair discrimination. The express companies have it in their power to discriminate in such a way as to ruin the business of certain individuals in this country. Everybody knows that the Standard Oil Company became the powerful factor that it is to-day in the com mei-ce of America, because of the unjust dii crimination afforded it by railway companies The same thing can happen on a much smaller scale in a way to affect a great many people, by these express companies giving unfair discrimination. I was looking over a book of railway statistics the other day, when I saw the statement that one of the best assets of the great Vanderbilt railway, the New York Central, was the $3,000,000 of shares which it holds in the American Express Company, giving it control. This shows how powerful these concerns are. Not many years ago when John Wanamaker was postmaster general of the United States, he was asked to introduce a parcel post system similar to what they have in Great Britain and Germany. He said :	' I would like
very much to distinguish myself as a member of this administration' by introducing that sort of a parcel post system in the United States ; but there are four reasons why we cannot have it. ' He was asked what they were. He said : ' The first is the American Express Company, the second is the United States Company, the third is the Southern Express Company, and the fourth is the Wells-Fargo Express Company. ' These companies are so powerful in the United States that they are in a position to prevent the parcel-post system being adopted in that country. They are so powerful that they have prevented a postal note being adopted'in the United States, or a money order system as good as we have here, and they maintain a system much inferior to what exists in England. My proposal simply is to bring the express companies within the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission, so that their charges should be subject to the control of that body, and the public can cite them before the commission and compel them to justify their proceedings. That is a very reasonable proposition. We fought last session to have the express companies covered by that Railway Act, but we were voted down. The boards of trade of this country have asked that the express companies be brought within the jurisdiction of the Act.


Mr. WM. ROSS (Ontario).: Have yon any data as to the amount of business done in the country by the express companies ?


William Findlay Maclean: 
An hon. MEMBER.: No.


William Findlay Maclean: Who says ' no ' ? Probably the gentleman is from the west. Yet it was a western member, and a Liberal, the hon. member for Alberta (Mr Oliver) Who said in this House a few months ago that the people of the west feared above all things that the Bell Telephone monopoly would get the west in its grasp as it already had the east. I do not want to antagonize the Bell Telephone Company. I want those who have their money in it to make a fair return on their investment. But I do not like to see a company with a public franchise treating the public as they are doing. They seem to think that success is to be attained by keeping out rivals, strengthening their monopoly and keeping up rates. But, if they would accommodate the public and lower the rates they would make more friends, and I believe they would make more money for their shareholders.
Now I come to the question of passenger rates. If the Bill goes to the Committee of the Whole House, or, if I have to go to the Railway Committee, I will give to hon. gentlemen every opportunity to deal


Robert Laird Borden: Is there legislation in the United States of that character ?


William Findlay Maclean: Of the United States ? No, it is state legislation in every case. I do not know whether they apply that to other railways ; if they found the Grand Trunk in this country carrying people for less than 2 cents, they would certainly pass an Act in the United States or in the state legislatures compelling them to give the same rate to Americans.
Here is something worse than that. These railroads that carry people in the United States carry traffic that originates in Michigan and New York at 2 cents alongside of Canadians who have to pay them 3 cents. Is that not an injustice and an unfair treatment of Canadians ?


Mr.   WM@: ROSiS (Ontario). Are you sure of that ?


William Findlay Maclean: I am sure of that; and I asked Mr. Kingsmill, the solicitor of the Michigan Central road, to have his passenger traffic expert here, and I would prove it. I have not got him here yet, but I will get him.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is that ?


William Findlay Maclean: I have asked Mr. Kingsmill to have a passenger expert here representing either the New York Central or the Michigan Central before the committee of this House, and I will prove by his own tariffs that they carry people through Canada at 2 cents a mile sitting alongside Canadians, whom they charge 3 cents.


Andrew B. Ingram: In the committee the statement was made that a passenger from Detroit to Buffalo could get a certain rate, and that he would have to pay from Windsor, just across the river, a much dearer rate to Buffalo. I think I can deny that statement.


William Findlay Maclean: 
Andrew B. Ingram: Does the hon. gentleman still hold that the statement I made is not correct ?


William Findlay Maclean: No ; I never made that statement.


Andrew B. Ingram: Therefore, it is not correct.


William Findlay Maclean: I can, of course, bear my hon. friend out in that. Let me tell you how it works out. Let us suppose that you are in Battle Creek and want to go to St. Thomas, the hon. gentleman's own town. There are so many miles of that trip in the state of Michigan and so many in the province of Ontario. They will sell you a through-ticket between these points and charge you 2 cents a mile in the state of Michigan and charge you 2 '60 cents a mile in Canada, which is four-tenths of a cent less per mile than they would charge the Canadian who buys in Detroit or Windsor. I believe you can buy in Chicago for St. Thomas and probably travel on the Canadian portion of the Michigan Central from Chicago to St. Thomas for 2 cents a mile, but no Canadian who buys his ticket at' Windsor or Detroit, or anywhere within Canada, can get these advantages. Is that fair treatment to Canadians ? Is that fair treatment accorded to Canadians by the Vanderbilt interest, which includes Rockefeller and the Vanderbilts ? It now includes the New York Central, the Michigan Central and thousands of other miles of railway, and they are carrying people all over the United States, especially in Michigan and New York, and carrying them through Canada at 2 cents a mile, but they will not carry Canadians for 2 cents. The same thing is done by the Grand Trunk Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Wabash, and will be done by the P6ra Marquette, if it can get the running rights it is now seeking. Is it not time that we should compel these great railroad corporations to treat us at least as well as they treat other people. Under these various proposals we can have a general principle applying 2 cents to all railroads. You can have the Michigan law, which is. based on the passenger traffic of the road. It starts at 3 cents and grades down to 2J cents, and has really worked great relief. Or we can have a law that any railway company doing business in Canada and also doing business outside of Canada shall give at least as good passenger rates inside of Canada as outside of it.


Mr.   WM@: ROSiS (Ontario). Are there any states but Michigan and New York that give it ?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, there are quite a number of states where it is effected by competition and one thing and another. I think the greater portion of Ohio is under a 2-cent rate. We have in Canada some legislation in favour of cheaper transportation, and it ought to be made so that it will apply to Ontario and Quebec any way. The Rob-iin government in Manitoba was making a deal with the Mann & Mackenzie system, the Canadian Northern, just like the govern-

eminent to-day are making a deal with the Grand Trunk in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific. They demanded terms. They did not so much demand terms on the new railway as they did on all their system, and here is the little clause in the statutes of! Manitoba of 1901, which reads :
When this agreement takes effect, the company shall reduce Its passenger rates In Manitoba, to not exceeding 3 cents per passenger mile
The little province of Manitoba in that agreement got a three cent per mile passenger rate over the Canadian Northern and the next day the Canadian Pacific Railway came to a three cent per mile passenger rate and gave it to the people of Manitoba The Grand Trunk to-day, on the most populous portion of its line, is charging over three cents. The rate between Toronto and Cobourg is a little over three cents a mile. Between Toronto and Montreal, on that portion of the road which has the largest traffic the Grand Trunk Railway Company is charging over three cents a mile. Granting that the deal with the Grand Trunk Pacific was a good one, and granting that the Grand Trunk Railway was made a party to the agreement as it has been, then I say that the government should have compelled the Grand Trunk Railway Company to have made a maximum passenger rate over the whole of its lines in Canada. It was done in Manitoba and it could have been done by this agreement or it could have been covered by the general Act. But even this is not all. The old government passed an Order in Council in connection with the Intercolonial Railway fixing the passenger tariff and it is scaled for 400 miles first class, at $8 and for 534 miles, second class, at a cent and a third a mile. If the government thought that was a good passenger rate to impose on its own railway in the maritime provinces where there is no congested population, surely the government ought to impose the same passenger rate on the different railways in this country.	.


Mr. HEYD.: What effect has that upon the earning power of the railway ?


William Findlay Maclean: I think travelling is' much greater in the maritime provinces and I think the maritime members will admit that and that they will be the last to consent to a repeal of that law. It has stimulated travel in the maritime provinces. We have a reduced rate of travel on the government road, we have a provision for a reduced rate in the Manitoba Act and we ought to make provision in our general law to compel outside companies to lower their rates. I pointed out last session that under the original agreement between the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the government of Canada the Grand Trunk Railway Company bound itself to give a penny rate per mile, second class, between Toronto and Mr. MACLEAN.
Montreal. It is not carrying out that agreement. I put a question on the paper some time ago asking the government whether the agreement was the same to-day as it originally was and I got an evasive answer. I believe it is still the same and I believe the Grand Trunk Railway Company could be compelled to give that lower service. When it comes to an issue in this House we may take any one of these proposals- a two-cent rate, or the Michigan law, or we can adopt a law that any company doing business in the United States that gives a two-cent rate outside of Canada shall give a two cent rate in Canada, or we can apply the Intercolonial Railway tariff to all railways. The people are entitled to a reduced passenger rate. I have here a book which contains a study of the question of passenger rates in America. I am only going to make the slightest reference to it but I would like any hon. gentleman who is interested in this question to look it up. It is :
Publications of the University of Pennsylvania-Series of Political Economy and Public Law-No. 10-Passenger Traffic of Railways-Walter E. Weyl.
Mr. Weyl made a thorough study of the passenger tariff of the United States and Europe and his conclusions are to the effect that the railways have mot sufficiently known their own interests, that they had to be forced to give reduced rates by the governments of Europe. Wherever these reduced rates were given travel was stimulated and he says that if the American railway managers reduced their rates their profits would be increased. That is the thesis he starts out with aud he makes a strong argument in support of it. There is a movement in the United States to-day and it is a rapidly growing one based on the success of reduced postal charges It is based on the claim that a cent a mile will stimulate travel so that the railways will make more money than ever, that it will promote the trade of the country, increase railway travel and assist in the education of the people. That movement is growing in the United States. A report in favour of it has been printed by congress recently and this report also can be found in the library. That is my argument in support of these changes in the Railway Act and whether we go into the Railway Committee or into the committee of the whole House, I intend to make good every one of the statements I have made here to-night. I have more details and I shall be glad to furnish them. Taking the Bill up clause by clause will give every hon. member an opportunity of being heard on the question and of putting forward his views. I want to have as full a discussion of the matter as possible from all points of view and if the railways want to be heard I will give them every opportunity, but I certainly want the Vanderbilt

interest to understand now that when it comes to' this House asking for legislation, asking for an Act of consolidation, the very words that were put into the statutes of the state of New York as affecting the lines owned and controlled by it to the effect that the passenger rate shall not exceed two cents a mile shall also be applied to it in any legislation that it may desire here. I believe that if it is appealed to on broad public lines the Vanderbilt interest will accept that two cent rate and incorporate it in its private Bill. At any rate the facts have been presented to the House to-night. We can discuss them much more fully on the different clauses of the Bill and any information that I can give on the matter I would be only too glad to supply to kon. gentlemen.


Andrew B. Ingram: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that I am very glad to have an opportunity of supporting in many respects the Bill which the kon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) has moved tonight, but I do not quite agree with the whole of that hon. gentleman's argument. I am very glad to support that feature of it which proposes to bring express companies under the general Act because I believe they ought to be brought under the control of the commission. Now. in respect to the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners on a question of law overruling the other members of the commission, and controlling them in so far as that is concerned, it seems to me to be a little inconsistent in view of the fact that in case of an appeal the appeal is made to the Governor in Council and the composition of that body before whom the appeal is brought may be as a matter of fact laymen. Therefore, the chairman gives a decision affecting a question of law although the appeal is brought before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council for decision.
If it is a question of jurisdiction, that may be referred to the Supreme Court, and the amendment of my hon. friend. (Mr. Maclean) would remove some of the inconsistencies that exist. In my section of the country-the county of Middlesex-a large number of farmers have a telephone system, and they experience a great deal of difficulty In trying to get connection with the Bell Telephone Company lines. The amendment would remove that difficulty. As to the reduction of passenger rate's, I may say that some time ago I had my name attached to a Bill asking for certain legislation in this House, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) took occasion to move an amendment to that Bill asking that a two cent a mile rate should be applied to that particular railway. I opposed that for the reason that I did not think it was a fair course to pursue with respect to any particular railway. If we are going to apply a two
cent rate to the railways of Canada, we should not select a particular line to experiment on, and especially so on that line of railway running through the southwestern portion of Ontario to the eastern states-a road that so far as local traffic in Canada is concerned would not be worth one single dollar if they had to rely on the money they got out of Canada. Another point is, that the Canada Southern Railway never received in any shape of form one dollar of bonus from the Dominion of Canada, while the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Lake Erie and Detroit that are parallel lines, all received bonuses from this government. The Canada Southern Company practically built their line of railway at their own expense, and at all events without any assistance from the Dominion government, and I thought that it would be an injustice to apply such a rule to that company alone. Reference has been made to what occurred in the state of New York in 1861, but the legislature of that state at least had the good taste to legislate with respect to one of its own lines of railway, it was not good taste to single out an American line that passes through our country, a Yankee road, if I may term it. built by money raised in the United States. If the Americans had taken the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Grand Trunk Railway running through the United States and applied a law to them that they declined to apply to their own railways, we in Canada would undoubtedly have taken that as an affront. For that reason I opposed the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) at the time, and thought then as I think now, that it would have been most unfair legislation. I wish to be placed on record as being willing to support any general law which will bring about a reduction of freight and passenger rates: but I shall decline to support any measure that will single out any particular line of railway for the purpose of imposing on that line obligations which we do not impose on others. I do not go so far as to say that every railway in Canada shall be compelled to reduce its rates, because when we look over the records we find that several railroads in this country are not making sufficient to meet their running expenses, and I think it would be improper for us to place such obligations on the investors in those lines of railways who are not getting any return on their investment. For that reason it might be unfair to apply the principle in a general way throughout the country. But if the law is made general in its application to railways which have receipts over and above running expenses, I am willing to support a law that will compel such roads to carry passengers at two cents a mile, if parliament in its wisdom should deem that to be proper legislation. That is all I wish to

say, and I say It in order to make myselt perfectly understood as to where I stand on this particular question.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would not have said anything on this Bill at the present time, had I known whether it was to be dealt with by the Committee of the Whole or by the Railway Committee.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The Railway Committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then it is my opinion that this Bill could be as intelligently dealt with in this House as in the committee. If it were necessary to get expert evidence that would be a justification to send it to the committee, but we have had analogous questions dealt with in this House over and over again. If the various provisions of the Railway Act itself could be properly dealt with in this House, I do not understand why these proposed amendments which are of a comparatively trivial character, could not also be dealt with in this House. It has been our experience in the past that these Bills are referred to the committee for the purpose of being buried, and I think that will be our experience in the future. If it were not a reflection on the committee, I would be disposed to say that these Bills were sent there for that purpose. When parliament desires to prevent a Bill from becoming law, and yet does not want to leave a record on * Hansard ' of what took place, the Bill is referred to a committee. I wish to say a word as regards the argument advanced by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Ingram) 'as to whv he opposes this Bill.


Andrew B. Ingram: I don't oppose the Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that he opposed that feature of the Bill which proposed to put restrictions upon a foreign company running through Canada, and which we did not put on our own railways here.


Andrew B. Ingram: I wish to say most emphatically that I am in favour of every feature of this Bill. I bad reference to a former Bill with respect to the Canada Southern Railway, aud my reference was entirely apart from this Bill altogether.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My understanding of the hon. gentleman's argument was, that it would be improper to compel a foreign company to carry passengers through Canada at two cents a mile, if we did not compel our own railways to do it. Am I right in that ?


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman is not l'ight in that. This Bill is supposed to be a general law and I am supporting it. The other matter of which I spoke was an incidental reference to a discussion which took place some time ago.


Andrew B. Ingram: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Grand Trunk Railway is a Canadian railway running in part through the United States, and the United States have legislated with respect to it exactly as the hon. member (Mr. Ingram) says we have no right to legislate with respect to American railways.


Andrew B. Ingram: I beg to differ from my hon. friend. The legislation in Michigan applies to the Michigan Central, the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific Railway and every other line irrespective of whether they are American or Canadian.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This law applied to the Grand Trunk Railway in the state of Michigan, and it did not apply to several of their own railways. It was meant to apply to the Grand Trunk, and the Grand Trunk was a Canadian road. If the people of Michigan did that with a Canadian railway, is it not equally just for the people of Canada to do the same with the Michigan Central Railway when it comes through Canada ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I wish to draw the hon. gentleman's attention to this fact, that there was no distinction made between the rates. If a railway had a certain revenue, the law applied to it, whether it was the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Pacific or the Michigan Central. But, in this case, whatever the ra-venue is, you are applying the rate to the Michigan Central and not to the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific.


William Findlay Maclean: We are only proposing to do with regard to the Michigan Central what the state of New York has done. It imposes a special condition on the New York Central, and on the New York Central alone.


Andrew B. Ingram: Certainly, in their own country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can there be any injustice in applying the same law to the Michigan Central in Canada, that the state of Michigan has applied to it in Michigan-that is, that when the earnings of the railway reach so much per mile, they shall give a two-cent rate, the earnings of the railway in Canada are up to what they are in the United States when it is compelled to give the two-cent rate ; then are we asking anything unjust when we ask that it shall do for the Canadian people what it does for the Michigan people ? If the proposal were to establish a two-cent rate all over Canada, I frankly admit that I would not be in favour of it, because there are localities where the earnings of the railway are not such as to justify such a reduction. But I am in favour of the two-cent rate in the thickly settled portions of Ontario. Let me state by way of illustration what occurred at one time on the Grand Trunk Railway. I took the train at Grand Rapids in Michigan, where two young men got on board with their bicycles. These were carried as baggage, and the young men were given checks for them. But

as soon as the train reached the Canadian line, the bicycles were put off, and the young men had to pay either 75 cents or $1.75 on each bicycle to Toronto. We were travelling on a railway which had been heavily subsidized jn Canada, and not subsidized in the United States, and yet it gave better advantages in the United States, where it was not subsidized, than in Canada, where it was subsidized so largely. The same thing applies to this railway. On the Michigan part of it, which was not subsidized, you can travel at two cents a mile, but as soon as you reach Canada where it has been subsidized, you pay nearly three cents a mile. If either should receive special consideration at the hands of the railway, it should be the Canadian people and not the Michigan people.
With regard to the provision of the Bill relating to telephones, I am inclined to believe it one of the greatest absurdities of the day, whether parliament intended it or not, that companies which are really common carriers are allowed to discriminate in favour of one who uses the Bell Telephone as against another who uses another telephone. Go into any part of the country where there are private telephone lines, and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company vyill not allow them to have connection with any of its offices, while it gives the Bell Telephone Company a monopoly. Our law provides for equal justice to all, and that there shall be no discrimination in favour of one as against another ; but we are allowing such a discrimination to-day, and the sooner we remedy it the better.
With regard to that feature of the law which gives the chairman of the Railway Commission the right to decide questions of law without any appeal, as against the two other members of the commission, giving the minority the control over the majority, it seems to me to be unorthodox, to say the least. If there were any other court in Canada which gave its decisions in a similar way, it would be the laughing stock of the world. Whether that provision was put in the law designedly, so that the chairman of the commission should be able to take advantage of it, or accidentally, I do not know. Knowing his relation to telephone companies in this country, I rather think it was designed by the government, and that they were all aware how it would work out. If that be so, I will leave them to settle that matter with the electors of the country. When it becomes known that the government inserted that provision for that purpose, I tell them that they will have a public sentiment to deal with more powerful than they have calculated up to the present time. The sooner we amend that part of the law, the better for our own credit.
With regard to the clause of the Bill providing that the Railway Act shall apply to express companies as well as railway companies, I have always held strongly the opinion that it should. Express companies are controlled by the railway companies, and a large part of the traffic is that carried by the express companies.
. Mr. FITZPATRICK. If I were to express my own personal view of this Bill, I would ask the House now to reject the measure for the following reasons. In the first place the first clause deals with the question of express companies, but during last session, alter a full discussion on this subject, it was decided that the provisions regarding express companies should not form part of the Railway Act. Having come to that conclusion last year, and in view of the fact that the Act itself has not been in operation a year now, it would be improvident for us to adopt the proposed amendment at present. I would also like to draw attention to the fact that if it were intended to give the commission control of the rates of express companies, it would be necessary to have very much more ample provisions than those contained in the Bill. In the Act many of the provisions for controlling freight rates are inapplicable to express companies, and it would be necessary to insert several clauses in the Bill in order to give the commission control of express companies. My hon. friend also proposes that there should be an amendment of section 10 of the law, which gives the chairman of the commission the decision of questions of law. My hon. friend must bear in mind that two of the commissioners form a quorum under the Railway Act, and if so, there must be some controlling power to determine the question submitted. But in addition he must remember that section 10 of the Railway Act provides that the commissioners must unanimously decide that the question is a question of law before the interpretation of that question is left with the chief commissioner. My hon. friend deals in section 3 with the question of compensation to telephone companies. It would be improper for us to pass this legislature at present, because that question is now under consideration by the Supreme Court on a reference of the chairman.


William Findlay Maclean: What is the reference?
Mr. FITZPATRICK-with reference to the measure of damage to be allowed in a case, I think, from the county of York. That question has been referred to the Supreme Court, and until we have the decision of that court it would be imprudent to lay down a rule by which damages should be fixed. With respect to the two cent rate, that is a very large question, which interests railway companies, and should not be decided without our having the proper statistics before us. My hon. friend himself, a short time ago, when this matter was up before the House on a

previous occasion, suggested the propriety of having fuller information ; and in view of that suggestion, I would ask this Bill to he referred to the Railway Commission so that we may have the opportunity of considering the question of a two cent rate more fully and of getting more information on that point.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 1 do not intend to discuss the merits of the Bill at any length, hut for the reasons I gave last year on the General Railway Bill, 1 think that the first amendment proposed is in the public interest, and ought to carry. If this amendment be not in the public interest, then neither is the General Railway Act we passed last session. Although I do not wish to admit personally that the Railway Commission has proved a success, still if there is any sense in establishing it, there is none in excluding express rates from its jurisdiction. We know that under the excuse. of carrying goods by express the railway companies will be able practically to defeat the law and perpetrate a frauu on the country. As regaids the second clause, I do not see at present how we can very well reject this amendment without placing altogether too much power in the hands of the chief commissioner. .All that the commissioners have to do is to decide that a certain question is a question of law and then the chief commissioner has the sole decision. X am further of opinion that there can he no appeal from his decision, for the appeal to the Privy Council can only be had from the decision of the commissioners acting as a body, and dealing with matters that are not questions of jurisdiction only. If we do not adopt this amendment, we leave it in the power of one commissioner to decide any question which the two others may say is a question of law. I understood the Minister of Justice to contend that the commissioners must unanimously decide that the question is one of law before it can be referred to the chief commissioner. I do not thus read the section. There is nothing to say that the decision of the commissioners must be unanimous. Two of them may decide that a certain question is one of law and then the chief commissioner has the sole power. We might thus find ourselves reduced to this position. One of the commissioners might be clearly of opinion that the question is not a question of law and another may be of opinion that it is. You will therefore have practically a division 'of opinion, and in such a case the chief commissioner could by agreeing with one other obtain for himself the absolute disposal of the question without any appeal, because, with all deference, I submit to the Minister of Justice that section 44 does not provide an appeal from the decision of the chief commissioner on a question of law, and that is the only section which covers the question of appeal.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In questions which are not questions of law there is an appeal to the Governor in Council. As to section 3, I do not dissent from the view taken by the Minister of Justice, namely, that it might be well to wait for the decision of the Supreme Court and I submit to my hon. friend from East York that after we get a decision from that court, we may be able to amend the law much more satisfactorily than we could do at present. As regards the two cent passenger rate, I do not see any excuse whatever for sending that question to the Railway Committee. Of course my position on these public Bills is pretty well known by this time in the House, and I am still of the opinion that all public measures should lie dealt with in the Committee of the Whole House once and for all. The fact that they are public Bills, and not measures of private legislation, is the reason why the House should deal with them. When they are sent to the committee, no progress is made, for nobody is bound by the decision of that committee. They have to come back here to be dealt with even if the committee should report against them.
Even if it reports that absolutely nothing could be done with the Bill, still it must come back to this House. We are not bound by the report of the committee, and we must solemnly sit here and deal with the question again. This seems to me a waste of time. And, as the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) said this evening, and as has been said by more than one of us on more than one occasion, it seems a mere excuse for disposing of the Bill without dealing with it on its merits, avoiding the responsibility of killing it, though the intention is that it shall l>e killed. In Committee of the Whole we can deal with this question of 2-cent passenger rate much better than in the Railway Committee. What information can we get in the Railway Committee that we hav? not here V We are not going to ask our constituents down to tell the Railway Committee how to vote. Yet they are the only ones we have to consider. We are here to make laws for the good of the people. We need no railway expert to tell us that, in this stage of railway development, in this period of the history of Canada, it is fair or it is unfair to propose a 2-cent maximum rate for passenger travel. If there are reasons why that rate should not be adopted, those reasons can be known to us now. If we do not know them we are to blame, for we should have been able to find out before now what the wishes of our constituents are with regard to the matter. I have no doubt whatever that the large majority of the people of Canada-certainly of the part of Canada I represent-are clearly in favour of saying that the time has arrived when the railways of Canada should be restricted to a maximum passenger rate of 2 cents a mile. I think the purpose of this amendment is sometimes misunderstood-not necessarily in

this House, but outside of it. Some seem to assume that the proposal is to make a rate of 2 cents per mile, no more or no less. But the amendment of the hon. member for Bast York (Mr. Maclean) proposes a maximum rate, still leaving it to the Railway Commission to say, if they wish, that the rate shall be II cents or 1 9-10 cents.


William Ross: No.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman says 'no.' But if he will read the Railway Act of last session carefully-or, for that matter, even if he will read it carelessly-he will find that the Railway Commission have the power to fix the rates, and this amend-, ment does not take from them that power This merely provides that they shall not make a rate of more than 2 cents per mile.
And I believe that the majority of the people of Canada are in favour of such an enactment. 1 support it because it is in the interest of the country, because it is time the railways had this much restriction put upon
them,	and because this should be given to guide the Railway Commission. For the Railway Commission know what we do here.
If we reject this amendment they will take it as a hint that the representatives of the , people of Canada-representing the people more directly than the Railway Commission does-believe that a rate of 2 cents per mile is not sufficient, and they may be deterred from imposing that rate, even though they may think' it fair. At all events, we in this House, representing the people, ought to tak# the responsibility, nor should we shirk it in the least by .referring it to the Railway ,
Committee or anybody else. Personally, I am in favour of the proposition, and will support it with vote and voice until otherwise advised by my constituents-which, X feel sure, will never occur for some time.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: When the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) last session moved a resolution in this House in favour of a passenger rate of 2 cents a mile on the railway I supported it, 1 and I feel like supporting the Bill that he has now introduced. I do not need to speak ' at length upon the subject just now, because it will be brought up either in the Committee of the Whole or in the -Railway Committee, and I shall have an opportunity of speaking
then.	It has been incidentally remarked here that the Canada Southern, or rather the Michigan Central, a railway which runs through my constituency, has been singled out as the first to-have imposed upon it this rate of 2 cents per mile. This Bill says nothing about the Michigan Central in particular, as I understand it, but simply provides that all railroads shall carry passengers for not more than 2 cents per mile.
There may be some force in the argument of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) that in the sparsely settled dis- _ tricts it would not pay to carry passengers 1 egraph lines.
for 2 cents per mile. AYhether that is true or not, I am satisfied that in the older sections it will be a benefit, not only to the people of the country, but to the railways themselves to have a 2-cent rate. For it has been shown that even when they cut rates themselves, or when they carry people at excursion rates, they make more money than in the ordinary way. If that be true, we are legislating in their interest when we make a 2-cents rate for the railways. It has been complained that the Michigan Central has been singled out. But the reason it has been singled out by a proposal made some time ago in the Railway Committee was that the company were asking for legislative favours from this parliament, and it was thought to be time for us to reciprocate and get some favours from them. It has been said that the Michigan Central was an American railway. But the charter was granted to Canadians. The Canada Southern people ran the road for a number of years, but having no connection with the east and west they could not make it pay, and they leased the road to the New York Central and the Michigan Central for a term of years, and now I understand they released it for 999 years. We find that this Michigan Central road is carrying American passengers for 225 miles across southern Ontario at the rate of 2 cents a mile. But if a man buys his ticket, say in Windsor, and rides to Fort Erie, he must pay 3 cents a mile. And it is very humiliating to a Canadian to sit in a seat alongside an American who rides at 2 cents a mile, while the Canadian himself has to pay 3 cents. If the road is compelled to carry passengers at 2 cents a mile, either they will do all the passenger business or the other roads serving the same territory will have to reduce their rates to the same level. The county I have the honour to represent gave this Canada Southern road $225,000 as a bonus. They paid interest on that money for twenty years, and I think we are entitled to some of the favours if nothing else. Of course, I admit that the railroad has been a great benefit, as all railroads are. We could not very well exist in Canada without railroads, but that does not say that the railroads should own the country. They should give us some privileges as we give privileges to them. Here is an opportunity for us, and if we let this escape and do not now compel these people to give us a 2-cent rate, then we are derelict in our duty, and we ought not to represent the people of this country, if we neglect this opportunity.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.	.
Hon. CHARLES FITZrATRICK (Minister of Justice) moved :
That the Bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Tel-
William Findlay Maclean: I am not satisfied that this Bill should go to the Railway Committee without a reason being given for it. On the motion which has just been made I intend to refer to one or two things which have been said during the debate. If we adopt the Michigan law which compels railroads earning over $3,000 a mile, the Michigan Central which now earns over $3,000 would have to give a two cent a mile rate in Canada.


William Ross: They earn $1,000 a mile on the Canada Southern.


William Findlay Maclean: No, the Canada Southern is not earning $4,000 a mile, but it earns over $3,000 a mile. The Grand Trunk today earns over $2,200. The earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway are coming up very rapidly and are between $1,700 and $1,800 a mile.


William Ross: About $1,500.
Sir. S1ACLEAN. No, it is nearly $1,700, I think. And so the Slichigan law would seem to be the one which ought to be aj>
plied in this country. It catches the roads that make a lot of money, and makes them give a lower rate.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Does the road that gives a two cent rate pay ?


William Findlay Maclean: All the shareholders have a guaranteed income for 999 years of 21- or 3 per cent a year. They are well satisfied and the New York Central is well satisfied because they make good money out of using the Canada Southern for through traffic.
In reference to sending this Bill to the Railway Committee, I would say that I had a Telephone Bill in this House dealing with the general question of telephones, and I was sent to the Railway Committee with it. Let me read to the House the opinion of the Slunicipal Union in regard to that. The Slunicipal Union, I wish to point out, is an association of all the municipalities of Canada for the purpose of protecting their rights. In the report of the secretary presented at their last annual convention in Ottawa in 1903, the report says :
Another subject of our labour has been the improvement of telephone legislation. During the session of 1902 the Minister of Justice had given his promise to introduce a General Telephone Bill which should contain some improvements in favour of our cause, the justice of which he admitted. As the work did not seem to proceed after a certain point, in the autumn, the Executive requested an interview, and met him at Ottawa by appointment on the sixth of February last. A pretty full interview was had, in which we placed before him the ' wishes of the municipalities, set forth in the proceedings of the union, and particularly their desire to control their streets and local franchises. He promised attention to the mat- , ter, and when the session arrived nothing was j done. It became apparent that other in- j fluences had been working his desire to im-Mr. FITZPATRICK.
|
prove his General Telephone Bill of the previous year in such a manner as to make it acceptable to municipal authorities, the Executive of the Union took an active interest in assisting in the improvement of the Bill of Mr. Maclean. A special sub-committee of the Railway Committee was formed, and numerous meet-i ings were held. The hostile influence, however, appeared to affect the operations of the special committee, and delays were systematically raised, which made it in the end self-evident that no real progress was desired by some of the members. It will be for this convention to inquire into the reasons of the course thus pursued, and to take such action as may seem proper.
That is the intention of this reference, to send the Bill to the Railway Committee for the Railway Committee to send it to a subcommittee for the purpose of getting all the information and once there the same thing will happen to this Bill as happened to the telephone Bill and no progress will be made, whereas if we can get this Bill in a committee of the House and it can be discussed in all its phases, the telephone question discussed by itself, both sides be heard, and every member given an opportunity to make a proposal himself and forced to vote and go upon record, we will get results of the kind desired. In shifting it over to the Railway Committee and treating it as the Telephone Bill was treated before, by a special committee, it will be hung up there and members wall not be compelled to vote on this question and yet it is a question in which the country is interested and on which it desires to know the record of members. I am not satisfied and I intend* to divide the House on this reference. I therefore move in amendment:
That the Bill be not referred to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines, but that it be referred to a Committee of the Whole House.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I did not intend to take part in the discussion of this question, but it strikes me that we are hardly in possession of the information which would enable us to arrive at a correct conclusion. We are .none of us here representing a railway or any railway interest ; we are here representing only one side of a bargain. Every person in this House is interested in bringing down railway rates and the other side have not an opportunity of presenting their view of the case. It can be readily conceived that were one hundred consumers of flour to assemble themselves together and say what is the price of a barrel of flour it might not suit the millers. We must say : For years you have been getting $5 a barrel for flour, and we think it is time now that we one hundred oonsumers should buy it for $4 a barrel. But the miller would say :	You must take into consideration
what I pay for wheat and wages ; I am not able to reduce my price. There is not one gentleman in this House prepared to put himself in the position of the other man

who is a partner to this bargain. It is the ( easiest thing in the world for men who | have any interest at stake to legislate and j regulate concerns so that it will inure ulti- | mately to their benefit without considering how it will affect the other side of the transaction. Luckily in this country this question is relegated to the Dominion House. Speaking of the conditions on the other side of the line, where the individual states have the power, a writer recently has said :
At present it is the ambition and endeavour of each state to secure rates no higher-and perhaps a little lower,-than its neighbour. Kansas sees no reason why it should not have as favourable rates as Missouri or Indiana ; Missouri and Indiana will not tolerate any disadvantage as compared with Ohio, Ohio insists on equality with Pehsylvania and Massachusetts. Viewed by itself, the ambition of each individual state is intelligible and even praiseworthy ; but the net result in practice is intolerable injustice to the railways of the more sparsely settled sections.
The recent decision of the Supreme Court will go a long way toward protecting the companies against this injustice.
Briefly, what the Supreme Court says is that a state legislature has no right to impose any rates for the carrying of freight or passengers which are not high enough to produce a ' fair return ' on the ' fair value ' of the property of the railway companies ; also that the question whether any given rates are adequate or not is not a matter which a legislature can decide, but must ultimately be a subject of judicial inquiry.
It presupposes at once that the legislature is not trained in the consideration of railway questions that has only a selfish interest, as it were, in one side of this question, and that it is not possessed of the judicial functions necessary to a settlement of this question - fairly upon its merits. We, tonight in this House, represent only one side of the question and because the constituents of the hon. member for Lincoln say that they would like a two cent rate is no reason at all why a two cent rate shall be adopted by the railways. I would ask any hon. gentleman in this House, taking the railways in their concrete form with an invested capital of a thousand million of dollars and an earning power of only two and a half per cent, if we were by our act to reduce this revenue of two and a half per cent we would be dealing justly with the railways. Would it not be a fair proposition to take each individual railway and see whether it could stand a reduction ? If we did so we would find that scores of railways in Canada to-day are not earning one cent and if we took such action we would be making their investments still more profitless than they are. I shall, of course, support the resolution that has been moved that it shall go to the committee so as to give the people who are interested in seeing that the railways get justice an opportunity of presenting their case. We have a per-
, sonal and selfish end in reducing the rate j from three cents to two cents a mile. It i would add to our comfort and add to our | pecuniary advantage. We have two parties to the transaction ; one of them is precluded from expressing his views on the question and under those circumstances an injustice will be done.
We could very well conceive that where an employer of labour has power to dictate the terms under which he shall employ a man and shall say that $1.23 is his opinion as to the value of a day's work and that man has no recourse, $1.25 will be the reward of that man's day's labour, but it is not right to the labour mail. Neither is it right for us to say here without a tittle of information or experience and without taking into consideration the accommodation that is provided or what it costs the railway company that- 2 cents a mile is a proper rate to charge. Under these circumstances I am prepared to support the resolution that the question shall go on to the committee so as to give the railway companies an opportunity of presenting their case and see whether they would be justly treated by an arrangement like this.


William Ross: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to say anything on this question to-night or to take up the time of the House as there are so many other matters to be considered, but as it is to be pressed to an issue, I do not wish to give a silent vote in connection with the matter. There are some portions of the Bill which have my approval. I am not quite certain that I am ready to move for all that is contained in the Bill, but there is no question to my mind but what the express companies should be placed under the supervision of the Railway Commission. Their rates should be regulated. Any of us who have to do business with express companies know exactly how these companies use us when we have to pay what we consider excessive charges on small parcels. The business of express carriage is a large and growing trade, and a trade which is much easier to regulate now than it will be ten years hence. We will be able to regulate it now much more easier than we will be in the future. Then, the clause relating to telephones may not be drawn nroperly or it may interfere, as my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) has stated, with some case which is now pending before the courts, but there is no question in my mind but that telephones should have as free access to the railways of this country as possible and that the connection with telephones all over the country should be as free as possible having a certain regard for justice to all interests. In regard to the two cent rate we have all been thinking about that a good deal. The question of a maximum rate of two cents a mile upon the railways is a live question in the province of Ontario to-day, but I con-

I'ess myself, tliat I have not sufficient data or information to enable me to decide upon the matter. The reduction of the rate from three to two cents a mile is a bold step. It is a reduction of thirty-three and a third per cent in the earnings of the railways and while it may he in the interest of the people to make this reduction we may be injuring the railways in doing so. Let us endeavour to have sufficient information before us to enable us to make up our minds in connection with the matter intelligently. That is my view of the matter and under the circumstances, not having sufficient information at my command I feel disposed to allow this matter to go before the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines. I have no doubt hut that the whole question will come back to the House again this session and that we shall have ample opportunity to discuss it when we shall have sufficient information in regard to it. I thought before I looked up the public records that the railways of the' country earned more money than they do. The hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) stated that the railways in Michigan earning $2,000 a mile give a two and a half cent a mile rate and that those earning $2,500 a mile give a two cent rate	.


William Findlay Maclean: Those earning $2,000 a mile give a two and a half cent rate and those earning $2,500 a mile give a two cent rate.


William Ross: The Canadian Pacific Railway's earnings last year were $1,460 per mile oil its road from passenger traffic. You see that is under the earnings of a road giving a two and a half cent rate. The Canada Southern earned $3,150 per mile. That is the best earning road we have in Canada. The Grand Trunk earned $2,200 a mile. Upon these figures the Canada Southern would come under the two cent rate, the Grand Trunk the two and a half cent rate and the Canadian Pacific Railway would still continue its three cent rate.
| Until we have obtained tlie information and until we have had the parties who are to be affected by a drop of thirty-three and a third per cent in their earnings before the committee so that they may have ail opportunity of placing their case before us we cannot intelligently decide whether this is a step which we should take or not. These are my views. I am prepared to support the resolution that the question be sent to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The Minister of Justice moves that the Bill be referred to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.


William Findlay Maclean: I will withdraw my amendment so that we can divide on the main motion.


William Ross: 


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that he withdraws the amendment ?


Mr. MACLEAN  .@: It has been suggested that we divide the House on the main motion.


Charles Fitzpatrick: As evidence of the wisdom of my suggestion that this should be referred to the Railway Committee, I would like to read to the House a statement of what the law really is in New York and Michigan.
The law as to the state oi New York is stated by Mr. Henry Apthorp, of Cleveland, as follows :-
The statutes of New York permit generally, a three-cent rate, although a much higher rate is allowed on hilly roads.^ The two-cent law in New York which is the exception referred to and which has been the foundation of many and oft repeated arguments, applies only to way passengers on one part of one road, viz., to that part of the New York Central Hudson River Railroad which lies between Buffalo and Albany. Under the statute the fare is limited to two cents per mile from any intermediate stations to Albany, or from any intermediate station to Buffalo, or from any one intermediate station to another between Albany and Buffalo.
It does not apply to the fare from Albany station to Buffalo station, nor from Buffalo station to Albany station. It applies to local fares only between these two cities ; and not only does the law authorize more than two cents, hut three cents is the ordinary fare in force upon many of the railways in New York State as Mr. Apthorp shows, giving the following instances.
The fare on the Nickel Plate Railroad between Dunkirk and Buffalo, is $1.15 ; distance, 40 miles ; rate per mile 2-87 cents.
On the Brie Road from Elmira to Binghamp-ton, $1.70 ; distance, 57 miles ; rate per mile, 3 cents.
From Syracuse to Ogdensburgh on the New York Central the fare is $4.14 ; distance, 137 miles ; rate per mile, 3 cents.
From Syracuse to Watertown on the New York Central the fare is $2.25 ; distance, 73 miles ; rate per mile, 3 cents.
From Utica to Malone, New York Central Railroad, the fare is $5.01 ; distance, 167 miles; rate per mile, 3 cents.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is the fare from Buffalo to Albany more than two cents ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: 
William Ross: I think there is the Canada Southern also.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am giving the statistics as I get them here. I am quoting the text from the statute law of Michigan ; Michigan compiled laws 1897.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What document is the hon.
gentleman quoting from ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is called
An argument upon the proposal to fix by statute in Canada a maximum rate per mile for the carriage of passengers by railway.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who is the author ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: This book has been handed to me this minute. It gives the text of the law. The law of the state of New York is taken from the general law of 1850 as incorporated in 1880. The quotation as to rates is from Poor's Manual, page 690. For instance, on the Grand Trunk Railway the average passenger earnings per mile are 82,000 ; on the Canadian Pacific Railway $1,460 ; on the Canada Atlantic $670 ; on the Canada Northern $315 ; as compared with the average earnings on the Boston and Main, of $5,102 ; the New York Central $7,073, and the Pennsylvania $6,595. These are statistics which deserve some consideration that I ask the Bill should be referred to the Railway Committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. '


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is only fair that we should have an opportunity to look into this. I confess that for my part I allowed myself to be carried away by the eloquence and evident'.v superior knowledge on the part of my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean), and I was impressed with the idea that the people of this country were being harshly dealt with. When I came to look into the facts here-


William Findlay Maclean: Are these facts ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I gave the reference as to earnings from Poor's Manual.


William Findlay Maclean: They all prove what I advanced.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The reference as to the law is the Michigan statutes and the New York statutes.


William Findlay Maclean: And they bear out my case exactly.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Perhaps they do, but I was under the impression that the hon. gentleman said that a two-cent rate prevailed in New York.


William Findlay Maclean: So it does by competition. The law is regulated in its application, but competition has made it universal, and you can travel all over the state of New York, with a very small exception, and all over the state of Michigan, except the peninsula for two cents a mile. You can travel over a great portion of the Pennsylvania Railroad for two cents per mile.


William Ross: You have to buy mileage tickets.


William Findlay Maclean: You can buy mileage tickets in nearly all states of the Union for two cents a mile. The man who has been quoted and whose name is not known-


Charles Fitzpatrick: As a railway expert my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) would not say that he does not know ' Poor.'


William Findlay Maclean: The minister has read a document which he must lay on the table. It is a case made out for the railway companies. Everything the minister has quoted proves my case, and by reason of competition that has come from the law ; they have a two-cent rate in these states.


Charles Fitzpatrick: At all events it is quite evident that there is conflict of opinion, to put it mildly, with respect to the facts. This is a most important amendment, and we are either in earnest or we are not in earnest. If we are in earnest and desire to ime pose a two-cent rate on all railways in Canada, surely the least the railway companies ought to expect is that they should have an opportunity to be heard. That is a matter of common justice. If these figures are correct they tell a different tale.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who is the author of that book ? 1


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not know.
Mi-. CLARKE, Is there anybody's name attached to it.


William Findlay Maclean: It blew into the House.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the Minister of Justice be good enough to hand that book over ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Of course. The quotations are said to be taken from page 699 of Poor's Manual, which is a well known authority. The average rate on the Grand Trunk Railway per passenger per mile is 1-78 cents and on the Canadian Pacific Railway 1-8 cents. Of course I do not know anything about these figures but assuming they are correct, you see at a glance what it would be to apply to the railroads in Canada, with their enormous mileage and sparsely settled country, the conditions that



prevail in these thickly settled parts of the United States. In any event, all that I suggest to the House is the propriety of further inquiry.


Edward Frederick Clarke: As I understand, all that xny hon. friend from East York desired was that similar consideration should he given to his Bill as was given to the Bill of my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster). He asked that the House should resolve itself into committee to consider the Bill, and he was willing that it should be afterwards referred to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I did not so understand him, and I think my hon. friend will agree with me that it would be a waste of time to go over all the figures here when we could have the matter much more conveniently dealt with in the Railway Committee.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I believe I am in error as to the position my hon. friend took, but I think the time occupied in a discussion of this measure here would not be time wasted. A good deal of information could be obtained from the hon. gentleman and others who have made a study of this question. I certainly laboured under the delusion that a two-cent rate prevailed throughout the state of Michigan and the state of New York ; for from the extracts read from the pamphlet by the Minister of Justice, which we are bound to accept, and which I understand are quotations from the statutes of both states, it appears that there is no fixed rule in that respect. I certainly think the matter is one that ought to be thoroughly investigated, and I should not desire to see my hon. friend's proposition treated as was his proposition of last year with regard to telephones. I happened to be a member of the sub-committee to which that measure was referred, and it was utterly impossible for us to get along. The matter was practically tied up. If the hon. minister will give us an assurance that an opportunity will be afforded to discuss the matter fully in the Railway Committee, I shall vote with him to have the Bill referred to that committee.


William Stevens Fielding: There can be no possible objection to that. The matter will be fully discussed in the Railway Committee and a decision come to there upon it ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: What I mean is that there shall be no reference of it to a sub-committee where it will be killed.


William Stevens Fielding: I can assure my hon. friend that no such move will be made with a view of side-tracking the measure; but if the Railway Committee should think that it would advance the inquiry better by referring it to a sub-committee, it would be difficult for us to decide here that the committee shall not take that course.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 


Edward Frederick Clarke: It would be a public inquiry which could be better conducted in the Railway Committee, where the majority of the members of this House could take part in it, and I would be prepared to support the motion of my hon. friend if the assurance were given us that we should have a free and full discussion of the measure in the Railway Committee.


Andrew B. Ingram: The Minister of Justice, in giving the figures with regard to the state of Michigan, omitted to mention that for five miles or less the rate per mile is three cents. I understood that the hon. member for East York, in introducing his Bill, had two or three suggestions. One was a sliding scale, and another was a geographical arrangement; and he was willing to leave to the Committee of the Whole House the decision of what the rates should be. Taking that view, I supported the hon. gentleman in his proposition. A great deal has been said about the rates in the state of Michigan and the state of New York. Any one who'knows anything about railway matters in those states knows that south of Lake Erie a certain rate prevails in a certain area, and all the railways are governed by that rate. So it is in Canada north of Lake Erie. If the hon. gentleman makes a proposition reducing the rates to what would be fair and just, and applying the same rates to all railways on the same basis of income, I would be prepared to support him. There should be an exception where the earnings of one road are less than those of another.


Rufus Henry Pope: I may say that the author of this pamphlet which the hon. Minister of Justice quoted, and the name of the author of which he had some difficulty in finding out, is Mr. Chrysler of this city, a man we often meet as a lawyer. There should uot have been great difficulty in ascertaining who the author of this valuable document is.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The references I made were to Poor's Manual and to the statutes, and I was careful to guard myself by saying that I did not know who the author of the pamphlet was. It was handed to me by the Solicitor General, and I handed it to the hon. gentleman who I thought could read it and find out the author for himself.


Mr. COWAN.: Surely no person suggests that Mr. Chrysler garbled the extracts from Poor's Manual.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would ask the hon. gentleman to give us the assurance that this Bill, if referred to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines, will be discussed and the evidence taken before the whole committee. If that assurance is given, I will vote for the proposition.


William Stevens Fielding: I hope my hon. friend will not misunderstand me. I stated that

there was no desire on the part of the government to adopt the policy of appointing a sub-committee to side-track the measure ? but if the Railway Committee come to the conclusion that any good purpose can be served by appointing a sub-committee, I do not think we are in a position to guarantee that the Railway Committee shall not take that course.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As the government has control of the Railway Committee as well as the other committees, I think we will have to trust to its honesty of purpose and desire to have the question fully discussed in that committee and accept its proposition. I would therefore suggest to my hon. friend from East York that it is scarcely worth while dividing the House if the government only desire to bring out information which can be brought out before the Railway Committee, but could not before the Committee of the Whole House. He should however give us the assurance that the government will not allow the telephone and railway lawyers to take up the whole time of the committee from day to day and thus prevent the taking of any action.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. RALPH SMITH (Vancouver) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 35) respecting union labels. He said: I do not think it necessary, Mr. Speaker, to take up the :time of the House for many minutes in explaining this measure. A Bill similar to this has already gone through the House but was defeated in the Senate. This House has given its opinion three different times that the request made by the trades unions of this country in favour of a registration of the union label should be complied with. Members of this House on both sides have agreed to that principle, but unfortunately the Senate has seen fit to kill each Bill to that effect as it came before that body. The principle of the present Bill is very simple. It provides that any body of men may present a label representing their production to the Minister of Agriculture, and the Department of Agriculture shall provide a certificate of the registration of such label.
Charles Bernhard Heyd: Could there be any objection to that ?


Ralph Smith: The House of Commons has never objected, but the objection comes from the Senate, inspired by the Manufacturer's Association. The union label is operating in this country very extensively, and there is nothing in this Bill which would bring about a condition of things that might not happen under the present operation of the label.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The use of the label is not compulsory ?
121$


Ralph Smith: No, there is nothing provided in the Bill to compel any employer to use it. The use of the label, if the Bill passes, will be the same as it is now. Tt will only become operative on the voluntary consent of the workingmen and the manufacturers. The Bill provides against a fraudulent use of the label. The request is a very reasonable one, and one which has been granted by thirty-one states of the American Union. Of course there the power to provide legislation of this kind is in the hands of the state governments, which is not the case in the Dominion, but thirty-one American states have provided for the simple principle of registration of the union label. In England the same thing is provided for under the Trade Marks Act and the Manufacturer's Association of that country do everything to encourage the operation of the principle of the label. In my opinion the tendency of the operation and use of this label would be to bring the organized bodies of workingmen and the organized bodies of manufacturers together and thereby bring about a better understanding between tlfem and better conditions of industrial peace. The remainder of the Bill consists simply of provisions for putting this principle into effect. The object is that upon the application of workingmen, the minister shall provide for the registration of every label. I therefore move the second reading.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I regret exceedingly that the rules of the House do not allow me to put the hon. gentleman's motion. The Bill is one which relates to and provides for imposing penalties in restriction of trade. By subsection (b) of section 6 it provides that it shall be lawful for any person, firm, labour union, &c., other than the labour union registering such label, unless with the consent of such labour union, to knowingly sell, offer for sale, or dispose of any article marked with such label or any part thereof ; or to counterfeit or imitate any such label; or to sell, offer for sale or dispose or in any way utter or circulate any counterfeits or imitation of any such label.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is clearly in restraint of trade and must be introduced by resolution.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The rule is quite plain, and I need only quote it to prove to the House that the motion cannot be put. Rule 41 provides :
No Bill relating to trade, or the alteration, of the laws concerning trade is to he brought into this House, until the proposition has first been considered in a committee of the whole House and agreed unto by the House.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That means that there should be first a resolution?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Precisely. I find also at page 641, Bourinot:

In the Canadian House it is the practice to consider all fees and charges which go into the treasury in a committee , of the whole.
This Bill provides for fees for registration and the issue of certificates, and for that reason also I do not think that jthe second reading can be proceeded with. 1 an: inclined to believe that the Bill is also contrary to section 54 of the British North Aemrica Act, which provides :
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or Bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that House bv message of the Governor General in the session in which sgch vote, resolution, address or Bill is proposed.	.
I am not giving a rule on this last point, but am prepared to rule that because the matter is one which relates to trade, and because it has been our practice to deal with matters of this kind in committee and upon resolutions, I cannot allow this motion for the second reading to be put.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What course then, should the hon. member take 1


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The course that is open to any member. Let him give notice of a resolution which will go on the order paper and be taken up in due course.


Ralph Smith: I shall provide the clerk with a notice to that effect.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ralph Smith) if this Bill is exactly on the same line as the one introduced before ?


Ralph Smith: I think it is the same, except that previously it was associated with the Trade Marks Act. This is an independent Bill for the union label.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who prepared this Bill ?


Ralph Smith: I think this Bill was prepared by the lawyer of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, Mr. O'Don-oghue.


RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 13) to amend the Railway Act. He said [DOT] This is a matter that I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) will recognize requires rather careful handling. It is a matter that we had under discussion last session, and some of the ablest lawyers we had in the House at the time, including the Minister of Justice and Hon. Mr. Blair, then Minister of Railways, expressed opinions upon it. The object of the Bill is to prevent the railway companies contracting themselves out of their ordinary liability for negligence; that is such liability as at-
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: taches to them according to the law of the province in which they are operating. The Bill that I have introduced differs materially in structure from the Bill introduced by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) last year, and I believe it differs in principle as well. From a careful consideration of the matter I am led to believe that, even though it be true that the Bill of last year might offend against the principles which divide the jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament from that of the provincial legislatures, yet I think that, should that turn out to be the case the Bill I have framed does not offend in that regard. The railways chiefly pointed to by the Bill are the Grand Trunk and the Intercolonial Railway. The government, or the country, is unfortunately, in the same position, as regards what I consider the injustice to railway employees, as the Grand Trunk Railway itself. The example is spreading, and we see that the Algoma Central Railway Company are adopting the same policy, namely, under the guise of affording a benefit to their employees, holding out terms of insurance to them and of protection to their families after death of the bread-winner, robbing the families of the compensation they could have for the wrong, and very often the flagrant wrong of the railway companies.
I pause as the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) has made a suggestion to me as to proceeding further. I do not want, by any possibility, to lose the opportunity of dealling with this matter. Of course, I recognize that it is pretty late, and we do not wish to stay here unnecessarily. But I wish to discuss this matter and have it to go to the committee if possible.


William Stevens Fielding: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) wishes to proceed, we have no objection. But, if it suits his purpose as well, to withdraw his motion and let the order stand in its place on the paper to be discussed at a future time we will call the day's work ended.


Haughton Lennox: I think I had better proceed, but I will be as brief as possible. T have a word or two to say as to the origin of the difficulty in this case a very important point. I will ask the Minister of Justice to take this point carefully into consideration, as I know that what I have to address myself to more particularly is to satisfy the Minister of Justice that this does not conflict with the jurisdiction of the local legislature. I point out that the origin of the difficulty in this ease, the whole cause of the trouble, is the Act of 1874 and the Act of 1878 enacted by this parliament. The Act of 1874 was a kind of omnibus Act, and I venture to say was not appreciated by the members of the House at the time when it was passed. It provided for the consolidation of the debt of a railway, the rising of capi-

tail, the providing of a superannuation and provident fund and other things, and, in that way, I am disposed to think, it slipped through without it being appreciated that it was a disability and a danger to railway employees. In fact, I think there is abundant evidence to establish that at the time it was enacted not even the railway lawyers themselves appreciated the gravity of the Act or the use it could be put to. But in recent years we have had reason to see in this Act a means of depriving the families of railway employees of such poor consolation as they could get from the recovery of damages for the death of those upon whom they had depended. I will merely refer to these sections, and proceed to another branch of the - case. The difficulty culminated when the railway company, under powers granted by these statutes, passed their by-law No. 15, providing that:
(15.) In consideration of the subscription of the Grand Trunk Railway to the society, thereafter no member or his representative was to have any claim against the company for compensation on account of injury or death through accident.
Then rule 5 provides for membership in the company, and makes it compulsory upon the employees, with one or two exceptions, not of importance now, to become members of the insurance. In other words, what is practically and effectually, according to the decision of the court, a contracting-out clause. And let me say in passing-because it has been used as argument against the employees that they accepted the rules and by-laws and made no objection to .them, and paid under the regulations prescribed by the company-that although there is a pretty full index of the by-laws, yet there is no index pointing to the fact that there is such a clause as the one I have just referred to. I have now dealt with the provisions of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. I shall presently refer to the use they make of the statutes they obtained from parliament in 1874 and 1878, and the effectual way in which they have used the clauses to which 1 have referred. It would surprise many members of the House-it certainly surprised me-to find that the Dominion parliament have adopted the same rule in reference to the Intercolonial Railway that has been adopted by the Grand Trunk.
Now I am here to say that I do not care how it cuts politically, I do not care who originated that clause, it is a most unfair and unjust provision by the'government on behalf of the people of Canada as against the employees of the Intercolonial. The significance of that and how it answers my purpose to refer to it, will appear pretty conclusively later on. The remedy that I propose for this difficulty is contained in a Ball which I shall not read at present, but the lines of which I wish to particularly impress upon the Minister of Justice. I am not asking to create any new
rights in the employees of the Grand Trunk Railway; I am not asking to interfere in any way with the rights of the people of any province as controlled by their legislature. What I seek by the Act is to leave the laws in these various provinces as they are and therefore to put beyond possibility any conflict with the provisions of section 92 of the British North America Act which conferred the rights on the provinces as contrasted with section 91 which defines the rights and jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament. I am not invading any rights, but I am endeavouring to do away with the effect of the invasion of the rights of the provinces effected by the statutes of 1874, and 1878, and to restore to the provinces the rights which they had up to that time.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Standing for provincial rights.


Haughton Lennox: Standing for provincial rights incidentally. I am glad I do not invade provincial rights, but I am proceeding with the intention, mainly of standing for the rights of the employees of the Railway Committee, people who have not the means of going from court to court to assert their rights and so by appealing to a court of last resort obtaining that justice which the Minister of Justice said last year they would obtain if they carried their grievances to the court of highest appeal. If the Bill which I have introduced is passed it will simply prevent the railway companies, operating under Dominion charters, who have provided an insurance branch to their business, from setting up as a plea the fact that these parties have become members of an insurance company and so have disentitled themselves and their families in case of death to the ordinary compensation to which they would be entitled according to the laws of the province in which they live.
It will be evident if we refer to the cases which have been decided and which have caused attention to be brought to the evil that exists in this matter that I am right in saying that the whole difficulty arises out of Dominion legislation, and out of the fact that the statutes of the Dominion so control the statutes of the only provinces where these questions have yet arisen that it is impossible now in the face of the Dominion statutes for these people to get redress. So far as I am aware the only provinces in which this difficulty has distinctly come to an issue are the provinces of Quebec and Ontario and in these provinces these difficulties would not and could not have arisen if the provincial laws had been allowed to take their course.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In what way ? Would my hon. friend enlarge upon that point ?


Haughton Lennox: In this way : Holden vs. the Grand Trunk, Harrison vs. the Grand

Trunk in the province of Ontario, and Grenier vs. the Queen and Miller vs. the Grand Trunk Railway in the province of Quebec, could not have been decided and would not have been decided against the plaintiff but for the existence of the statutes of which I am complaining and of which I wish to have such an amendment as will give these people the benefit of the ordinary laws of the province in which they live. Holden and the Grand Trunk was tried at Hamilton before Mr. Justice Falconbridge and a jury. There was of course a plea of contributory negligence and that plea was left for the decision of the jury, but there was also raised the question pleaded upon the record that the plaintiff, the widow of the deceased, was barred by reason of this rule No. 15 which I have read. The jury decided in favour of the plaintiff, that is, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover so far as the portion of the case committed to them was concerned, but Judge Falconbridge decided that this plea was a good plea and was an absolute bar to recovery by the plaintiff. The matter came up subsequently by way of appeal in Toronto and it was then decided by the judges of the divisional court that so far as the branch of the case tried by the jury was concerned the rights were with the defendants, the Grand Trunk, and that having been decided by the court they decided not to deal with the other questions, and left it in the position in which Judge Falconbridge had left it. Judge Falconbridge decided that so far as rule 15 was concerned, the plaintiff could not succeed, In the appeal court the plaintiff failed upon the other branch of the case and it was not necessary to consider the branch of the case which had been decided by Judge Falconbridge, and therefore the decision of Judge Falconbridge stands in Ontario as a decision to govern Ontario until it comes to a higher court.
Last year when this matter was before the committee of the whole House, Hon. Mr. Blair, the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, said :
I have no doubt that the hon. Minister of Justice is entirely right. You might as well say that because this parliament incorporates a company to carry on a wholesale dry goods business in the city of Toronto, all the relations between the employees and employers come within the legislative control of this parliament we have the right to say what the conditions of employment shall be. My hon. friend says that some judges have passed an opinion to that effect. I would like to see the case, because I can hardly realize that any judge of eminence in Ontario, could come to such a judicial determination.
Chief Justice Falconbridge is regarded by some hon gentlemen on this side of the House and by many hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House as an eminent jurist. Chief Justice Falconbridge is well known, particularly well known of late Mr. LENNOX.
years, and I think I can commend him as an eminent judge. But, if something more is required to show how a really eminent judge has decided the matter I will refer to the case of Harris and the Grand Trunk Railway Company decided on 11th January last and reported in 3 O. W. R. page 212. This report is in the same words as the case is reported in the ' Globe.' The ' Globe,' of 11th January, says :
The judge, without the aid of the jury, undertook (by consent of the parties) to determine an issue raised by the defence, that plaintiff was a member of the Grand Trunk Railway insurance and provident society, and by one of the rules of that society no member shall have any claim against the railway company for compensation on account of injury or death from accident. Plaintiff received $39 from the funds of the society. Held, following the decision of Falconbridge, C.J., in Holden vs. Grand Trunk Railway Company (decided in appeal upon other grounds, 2 O.W.R. 80) thaj this was a good defence to the action. Action dismissed without costs.
I was saying that this judge for eminence and ability would commend himself to the judgment of my hon. friends opposite, the decision is by Mr. Justice Britton. These are the Ontario cases and they are decided upon the ground that this rule exists and this rule as recited by the acts of incorporation of this company could not exist but for the Acts of 1874 and 1878 of this parliament. In the province of Quebec I refer to the case of Grenier vs. The Queen, and I remember that last year the hon. Minister of Justice reminded .us that he was engaged in this case and he also reminded us that a matter of representation arose. But, the decision of the case does not turn upon the question or representation; it was decided upon the ground of a contract such as that with which we are dealing. The chief justice says, at page 51, after referring to the fact that in the province of Quebec there is no such thing as a defence of common employment :
Therefore, unless the suppliant's husband had so contracted with the Crown as to relieve it from responsibility for his death by reason of the negligence of the servants of the Crown, the judgment in favour of the suppliant now under appeal ought to be maintained	That the action given by Art.
1056 C.C. is merely an embodiment in the Civil Code, of the action which had previously been given by the statute of Canada re-enacting Lord Campbell's Act is too plain to require any demonstration and nothing in the judgment of the judicial committee in Robinson v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company (1) controverts this proposition. It would follow, therefore, that the suppliant's husband by becoming a member of the Intercolonial Railway Relief and Assurance Association and thereby assenting to its rules and to the arrangement by which the Crown contributed $6,000 annually to the funds of the association, in consideration of which the association on behalf of its members renounced all claims against the Crown

which might arise from the injury or death of any of its members, -constituted a complete answer to the suppliant's petition.
After that he says, it must be acknowledged that such a contract is an effectual bar to suppliant's claim. So that although, as my hon. friend said last year, the other question was considered, the decision as is recognized in the judgment in Miller and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, turned upon the question that the husband of the plaintiff having contracted himself out of his right to compensation, the wife stands in no better position. The case of Miller vs. The Grand Trunk, the other case that has since been decided in the province of Quebec, was based upon the principle enunciated in Grenier vs. The Queen. So that, I think I can with very fair support claim, as I said a few moments ago, that but for the Act of the Dominion parliament this difficulty could not arise, and that we only require to allow free action to the laws of the various provinces ; and to say that although we allow the Intercolonial Railway to have an insurance company in connection with its undertaking and although we allow the Grand Trunk Railway Company to have such an association in connection with its undertaking or any other railway company, we will allow no railway company, incorporated by the Dominion parliament, and over which the Dominion parliament exercises jurisdiction, to have such rules and regulations framed under its statutes as will enable it to bar any employee from the relief or compensation which he would otherwise be entitled to according to the laws of the province because of the negligence of the railway company.
Now, I have not adopted last year's Bill for reasons which I have to some extent expressed already. I have endeavoured to frame this Bill upon other lines for other reasons as well. I wished to avoid as far as I possibly could the complication which rises from leaving preliminary questions to be decided by the judges. I wanted, as far as possible, to have the law so plaiD that no litigation could arise, so that the railway company will not be tempted to invite litigation because I recognize that when litigation arises in nine cases out of ten the family of the deceased railway employees must necessarily be the parties to suffer.
I would not attempt at this late hour to define the vexed and tedious question of just where the jurisdiction in various cases is; but I call the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that the exceptions are very numerous, to the theory that this would be an invasion of property and civil rights within the definition of section 92 of the British North America Act. That section is subject, not only, to the important exceptions defined in section 91, but to the very significant exceptions in the body of section 92 as regards public works for the general advantage of Canada, and of course, railways for the general advantage of Canada. That is a broad and easy matter to follow, but what I want to call the attention of the minister to is, that when this parliament has authority over any specific subject, it is its duty to legislate for all matters which are reasonably incidental to or connected with that subject. If you-have, for instance, a transcontinental railway incorporated by the federal parliament, you have the right to legislate on every matter which is incidental to the carrying out of that undertaking as a whole, no matter how much it might otherwise infringe upon provincial rights. I see the Minister of Justice does not confirm that.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We undoubtedly have the control over insurance, but would we have the right to make uniform clauses?


Haughton Lennox: We would have the right to make uniform clauses. I do not see anything that suggests the contrary, The provincial legislatures have certain powers over a number of subjects, so long as they are not appropriated by the Dominion parliament. That has been decided in several important cases, both in the courts of Canada and in the Imperial Privy Council. If we incorporated an insurance company we would have complete control over all the matters that are incidental to that company. That does not prevent a local legislature supplementing that by providing that certain conditions shall also be complied with by every "insurance company doing business in the province. That was recognized when the question came up as to taxing banks and insurance companies. It was held by the Privy Council that the provinces could tax them on the basis of the revenue they derived, and also on their business premises. In other words, an organization cannot carry on business within a province without the license of the local legislature, and the local legislature can, by way of license or tax, impose conditions upon the carrying on of their business. In support of the proposition, that whatever matters are reasonably incidental to the carrying out of the undertaking are within the competence of the Dominion parliament. I refer to Levesque versus New Brunswick Railway Company (1899), This company was incorporated before confederation, and it was afterwards declared to be a railway company for the general advantage of Canada. The question came up as to the limit of the rights between the provincial and Dominion parliaments, and it was decided that the question of fencing being a matter which went to the question of the property located in the province, it was controlled by the provincial legislature; but as to the question of the time within which to bring the action, which is usualy regarded as a mat-

ter of procedure, and peculiarly within the power of the local legislature, it was decided that that was a matter within the competence of the Dominion parliament, as it was controlled by the Dominion Act. That has not been since questioned. I notice that statutes have been passed since on the same basis, and in the matter of the Audit Act, it was pointed out by Sir John Thompson in one of the amendments as being a matter which, upon that principle could be controlled by the Dominion parliament, although it was suggested by Sir Louis Davies that it could not. As to being reasonably incidental, I refer to in re the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the County of York. Burton C. J. said:-
In all matters affecting its construction, operation and management, everything in fact necessary to its full and efficient working, the legislation of 'the Dominion is of a paramount authority even though it intereferes with property and civil rights, and trenches upon matters assigned to the provincial legislature by section 92.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The best case on that point is Roy and the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Mr. LEN1VOX. There are a number of other cases, which I have here, but I need not cite them. The wording of this is peculiarly important in reference to what we are here dealing with. ' The operation and management of the railway and everything that is necessary for its full and efficient working ' surely would embrace the question of an insurance company as part of the organization. This shows clearly, I think, that the Dominion government have control in regard to a railway for the general advantage of Canada. In the case of Curran vs. The Grand Trunk Railway, where the Workmen's Compensation for Injuries Act of Ontario, limiting the damages, came in conflict with the Dominion Railway Act, section 289, where the damages are unlimited, it was held that the damages were not controlled by the Act of the Ontario legislature. It is a question of damages we are dealing with here, the railway company claiming that by reason of the Dominion enactment they are not liable to pay more damages than they would pay under the insurance branch. But the parliament which created this creature and gave it its rights can so modify and control these rights that it cannot set up that the insurance money should be compensation for the wrong it had done the person insured, he having paid in his lifetime for the insurance he gets. I was going to refer to a number of authorities in Privy Council cases; but as the hour is late, and as I know my hon. friend the Minister of Justice is familiar with all these cases, I will not trouble the House with them.
The position of the government with reference to the Intercolonial Railway I have referred to. I do not think it is a desirable position for the country to occupy. I wish it to be understood that I am not complaining of the attitude of the government itself. I am not saying that the blame belongs to this government. I have not concerned myself with that. For anything I know, this scheme may have been inaugurated under a former government. Whatever government has adopted this system, it is not to the credit of Canada that it should longer exist. I do not think it is fair or even honest to the employees of the Intercolonial Railway that it should be enforced in the future. In this connection-and I do it with the very greatest respect-I want to point the Minister of Justice to the position he occupies in this regard. Last year he told the House that the amendment then proposed could not be carried through, and that the law which had been declared by the Ontario judges was not correct. In other words, if it was carried sufficiently far, the decisions would be reversed. But let me ask the Minister of Justice how he can reconcile that statement with the fact that he defended on that ground. He put forward that very plea in the case of Grenier vs. The Queen, argued the case on that ground, and won it on that ground. How can he say for one moment that this is not the law ? I am quite aware that sometimes lawyers argue cases in which they are not quite sure they are right, in which they have a lingering doubt as to justice being on their side.


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: Has that any application to the present case ?


Haughton Lennox: I do not think it has ; but I do not say that when we find the Minister of Justice representing the Dominion of Canada setting up that plea, it could not be possible that he then ^lad any doubt as to it being a correct statement of the law. In other words, we cannot conceive that the Minister of Justice defended that case and won that verdict from that woman who was bringing the action unless he believed it to be the law. Therefore, when my hon. friend said, a year ago, that it was not the law, I submit 'that for the moment he overlooked this circumstance; and if he will refresh his memory by reference to the case of Grenier vs. The Queen, in which he was engaged, he will see that the defence was pleaded as I say, argued as I say and decided as I say. Therefore, we can have no stronger ground than that the law in the case arising in the province of Quebec was then decided to be upon all fours with the decision of Mr. Justice Falconbridge and Mr. Justice Britton in the province of Ontario ; and, to make it stronger still, it is reafiirmed in the case of Miller vs. Grand Trunk Railway, decided on


Haughton Lennox: the same authority, since we were discussing this matter a year ago.
Now, having regard to the large interests at stake, and to the fact that I am pleading, not for railway employees who are alive, but prospectively for those who have not the means of vindicating their rights in all the courts of the land, I have done all I could to familiarize myself with the matter and have drawn this amendment as carefully as possible. I can well anticipate that it might be an easy matter for the Minister of Justice, if he should so desire, to point out that in my limited experience it is not very well or artistically drawn. I am not greatly concerned as to whether it is technically correct or not.
I have discharged my duty when I have dene all I could to perfect this measure. Technicalities can be cured, and it is the duty of the Minister of Justice, as I believe it will be his pleasure, to correct any errors into which I may have fallen. I now leave the matter to him. It was the Dominion parliament which placed this difficulty in the way of these employees. I understand that there are 25,000 employees of the Grand Trunk Railway in Canada. The authority I have for this is the statement of the hon. gentleman who introduced the Bill last year. Assuming that to be correct, in this one railway company alone there are probably 100,000 people are dependent upon the righting of this grievance. The Intercolonial has adopted the same position and other railway companies are following in this wake. The Grand Trunk, by its new rules, is becoming more rigid and advancing further still. It is therefore high time for the government to take up the matter seriously and endeavour to right this grievance. Just one word as to a possible objection'. Last year I was asked whether I considered that a special Act could be amended by a general Act without mentioning it. I may say that we are having such general Acts every day. The other day, when it was proposed to have alien labour legislation in a special Act, we were told that we would have a general Act governing the Transcontinental and all other railways regarding alien labour. These general Acts are constantly passed affecting corporations and institutions all over the country, but if it be necessary to make special reference to the particular Act, let the Grand Trunk Railway be named. If necessary to make any amendments. I would ask the government to make them, and I submit, not as a matter of special favour, but of simple justice to people whose rights are invaded, without, I believe, parliament intending that the statutes would be put to the use it has been, that these amendments, if necessary, should be made.


Charles Fitzpatrick: This is an interesting question which we had occasion to consider last session. I must say that up to the
piesent I have not been able to see any very good reason to depart from the opinion I expressed last year that the legislation is ultra vires. In view however of the further information we have had from the hon. gentleman, I would suggest that in order that I may be able to further consider the Imaitter, I should be allowed to move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. CLANCY.: In a question of such importance as this, we are entitled to expect from the Minister of Justice something more than the scant courtesy he is giving it now. He has had a long time to consider this matter. It has not been sprung upon him without notice. He knows it is an important matter, and to tell us now that he requires further time to consider it, is simply treating the measure in a way which its importance does not deserve. I would not pretend to argue the legal phase of the Bill, but there is one thing certain. That is that this parliament should correct the wrong that may have been done by legislation or by lack of legislation ; and to refuse to deal with a question so important as this, when the evils complained of are constantly growing greater, is>
certainly showing most reprehensible neglect. We have a large number of men employed in Canada by two railway corporations-the one under the control of the Crown and the other a private corporation. I might well repeat what was said by the hon. member for South Simcoe, namely, that it was not creditable to the parliament of Canada to have passed such legislation and afterwards allowed it ho remain of the statutes. No man who gives value in the shape of work for the money he is paid should by reason of any contribution by a government or corporation to any system of insurance, the premiums upon which he pays himself, be put under any obligation to any corporation by reason of such payments. Any contract with such conditions is immoral and should not be continued a single day, and I am surprised that the Minister of Justice should have set up the plea that he had not time to consider this measure. How long does he want to consider it, or does it mean that he does not consider the question worth his serious consideration '! I know he is a busy man. but that is not a sufficient excuse for having overlooked so important a question. Unless he is ready to give us the assurance that he will take up this matter during the present session and treat it as seriously as it deserves, I think it may be taken for granted that he is simply prepared to dig a grave for the Bill. I hope I am entirely wrong and that tue hon. gentleman will give us some assurance that this measure will be taken up during this session.


Andrew B. Ingram: Perhaps the Minister of Justice would allow this House to pass the second reading without committing the gov-

etnment to the principle of the Bill. That would advance it a stage and next Monday the matter could be brought up again.- A large number of railway employees look upon this as a very serious question. The Minister of Justice by advancing the Bill 'a stage will show the employees generally that the government are not putting barriers in the way of this legislation.
Many years ago this matter was brought up in the Ontario legislature, and the employees of the railway were asked their opinions with respect to it. They decided by a large majority in favour of legislation which would protect them. It is a well-known fact that, a good employee in the' railway or any other service will always protect his family by insurance and in every other possible way. If an employee protects his family by insuring for all he can pay, is it not an injustice that the railway company should call upon him, as a condition of his being employed, to sign a document which contracts the company out of their liability for damages because of injury ? That is what the Grand Trunk does, and I am sorry to see the Intercolonial following the same course. This is a serious matter for these men, and it is a matter that has been before them for a great many years. I think the Minister of Justice should allow this Bill to advauce a stage, without committing himself, and before next Monday he can look into the matter and give a decided answer. I again press upon the government and especially upon the Minister of Justice the importance of this question to thousands and thousands of men. These men look upon this question in a more serious light than hon. gentlemen may be aware of.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Last session, when this matter came up in amendment to the Railway Act, I did consider it. I must say frankly to the House, that the point was not then considered by me for the first time. I was Solicitor General at the time when the case of Grenier vs. the Queen, to which the hon. gentleman has referred, came up, and I had to argue it from the government point of view before the Supreme Court. I admit that I thought the question closed so far as I was concerned, and that it was not necessary to consider it further. But I say in all seriousness that my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) has put it in a somewhat different light. I am so constituted that I cannot make up my mind at once on a point; I want time to consider; and what I ask is that the hon. gentleman should allow the ' matter to be deferred for further consideration. Of course, the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) suggests that I should be able to make up my mind at a glance. Well, I know what I think of men who make up their minds at a glance and who express their opinions off-hand, and I suppose if I should follow that course people would have the same Mr. INGRAM.
opinion about me. I want time to reflect. The object 1 have in view is to see whether, in view of the serious argument, the very able argument, of my hon. friend, I may not change my mind.


Haughton Lennox: Would the hon. Minister (Mr. Fitzpatrick) see any objection to letting it stand, retaining its position? I presume that could be done, with the consent of the House. I certainly do not want to press it as though I did not fully believe in what the Minister of ^Justice has said. I understand, of course, that he is perfectly candid in what he says.
Motion (Mr. Fitzpatrick) agreed to, and debate adjourned.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can the minister (Mr. Fielding) say what business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: The Bills that stand on the order paper other than the Militia Bill. If we dispose of these, the House will resume in Committee of Supply, taking up the estimates of Inland Revenue, and, perhaps of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. There are also some special items of estimates which will have priority.
Motion agreed to and House adjourned at 12.20 a.m., Tuesday.

Tuesday, May 31, 1904.