1904-06-20

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 140) respecting the Alliance Bank of Canada.-Mr. Russell.


Mr. RALPH SMITH asked :: 1.	Is the government aware that certain individuals in Great Britain are engaged in mak-Mr. KAULBACH.
ing fraudulent representations to intending emigrants to Canada by holding themselves out as agents of the Canadian government, guaranteeing positions, and otherwise being guilty of fraud ?
2.	If so, what action, if any, does the government intend to take for the suppression of these frauds and the punishment of the offenders ?


Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister of the Interior) :: 3.	The government is aware that certain individuals in Great Britain are engaged in making fraudulent representations to intending emigrants to Canada by guaranteeing positions and otherwise, but it is not aware that these individuals hold themselves out as agents of the Canadian government, excepting from general reports to the effect that in some cases these persons have represented themselves as agents of the government.
2. In order that the offices of these individuals may not be mistaken for government offices the department has made public announcements in Great Britain*that the individuals in question are in no way connected with the government of Canada, and has instructed that notices be posted, especially in the London office, to this effect.
In addition to this, the attention of the imperial government has been drawn to these frauds with the view of suppressing them and punishing the offenders.
_ The following advertisement is also being inserted in leading newspapers of the United Kingdom :
The government of the Dominion of Canada, having been informed that certain persons conducting labour agencies in Dondon and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, have been promoting the emigration to Canada of mechanics and other skilled workmen, have been giving false information respecting labour ' conditions in Canada and have represented themselves as agents of or as having the sanction and endorsement of the Dominion government. Notice is hereby given that the Dominion government has no such agents in the United Kingdom, has not authorized, sanctioned or in any way^iven its approval to any agency in the United Kingdom for promoting the emigration to Canada of mechanics or other skilled labour. James A. Smart, Deputy Minister of the Interior of Canada.
The Department of the Interior is advised that this advertisement is appearing in the London 'Telegraph, the London 'Chronicle,' the London 'Mail,' London 'Express,' London ' Leader,' London ' Star,' London ' Snn,' London ' Echo ' and the London ' Evening News ' ; the Manchester ' Guardian ' and the Manchester ' Evening News ' ; the Birmingham 'Post' and the Birmingham 'Mail'; the Liverpool ' Post ' and the Liverpool ' Echo ' ; the Glasgow ' Herald ' and the Glasgow ' Record ' ; the Edinburgh ' Scotsman ' and the Edinburgh ' Evening Despatch ' ; the Newcastle * Chronicle ' and

the Newcastle ' Evening Chronicle ' ; the Cardiff, South Wales, ' Echo ' and the Cardiff ' Western Mail ' ; the Bristol ' Western Press ' and the Bristol 1 Evening News ' ; the Belfast ' Northern Whig ' and the Belfast ' Evening Telegraph ' ; the Dublin ' Irish Times ' and the Dublin ' Freeman's Journal.' The Press Association has also circulated the notice.


GOVERNOR GENERAL'S BODY GUARD.
Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES-by Mr. Lancaster- asked :
1.	What is the reason that Major William Hamilton Merritt has not been gazetted to the command of the Governor General's Body Guard of Canada ? *
2.	Did Lieutenant-Colonel C. A. K. Dennison's period of command expire hy effluxion of time in June, 1903 ?
3.	Did he at the same time send in his resignation ?	[DOT]


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) :: 1.	Major W. H. Merritt has been gazetted to the command of the Governor General's Body Guard, from 11th June, 1903. See ' Gazette ' of 27th May, 1904.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.


CHAMBLY CANAL-STONE CONTRACT.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Has the contract for the different kinds of
stone required for the Chambly canal during the present year been granted ?	*
2.	If so, to whom, and what are the prices accorded for each quality ?
3.	Did the government receive more than one tender ?
4.	If so, what are the names of the tenderers and the amount of each tender ?
5.	Was the contract in question accorded to the lowest tenderer ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of RailWays and Canals) :: 1.	A contract for crushed stone for the present year has been granted.
2.	To J. E. Hebert, St. Johns, Quebec, at $2.45.
3.	Y*es.
4.	J. E. H5bert, St. Johns, Quebec, at $2.45; N. Mailloux, St. Johns, Quebec, at $2.50.
5.	Yes.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill .(No. 136) respecting the Similkameen and Keremeos Railway Company.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 137) respecting certain patents of the Canadian Office and School Furniture Company, Limited.-Mr. Clare.
Bill (No. 138) for the relief of Andrew William Mann.-Mr. Macdonald.
Bill (No. 139) for the relief of Jennie Davison Moore.-Mr. Macdonald.

Mr. HANCE J. LOGAN moved :: That in the opinion of this House, the preferential tariff should only apply to importations through Canadian seaports.
He said : Mr. Speaker, this notice of motion has been standing in my name on the order paper for some weeks, and I have been in hopes that the government might adopt the policy which is enunciated in it, but now that the buuget has been brought down my hopes are disappointed in that regard. I cannot hope therefore to have the policy adopted during the present session ; but, believing as I do that it is in the best interests of Canada that this policy should be adopted at another session of parliament, I crave the indulgence of the House for a few moments while I give my humble views as to why this policy should be adopted in Canada.
Some one may ask : Where is the demand for such legislation from any public body ? There have been many resolutions passed by boards of trade and other bodies, and one I believe by a provincial legislature, asking that such legislation be enacted. I have in my hand a resolution passed unanimously by the Halifax Board of Trade as far back as February 25, 1901. That resolution was communicated by telegraph to the Hon. W. S. Fielding, as follows :
Resolved that this council cordially endorses the suggestion of a member of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, which provides that the customs rebate of thirty-three and one third per cent on goods manufactured in Great Britain be allowed only when said goods are landed at Canadian ports, and pledges itself to use every means in its power to urge the adoption of the measure by the government.
In the month of August, 1901, a conference of the boards of trade of the maritime provinces, held at Chatham, N.B., passed the following resolution :
Resolved, that in the opinion of this board the preferential customs tariff as applied to imports from Great Britain should only apply to goods imported directly through Canadian ports.
At a conference of all the Canadian boards of trade, held at Toronto in June, 1902, this matter was very thoroughly discussed. A resolution favouring it was moved by a gentleman from St. John. After a considerable amount of discussion, the resolution was amended on motion of Mr. Munro, of Montreal, and the following resolution was passed unanimously :
In order to encourage the importation of British goods via Canadian ports, this conference desires that the preferential rebate on goods imported from Great Britain arriving by United States ports shall be limited to 25 per cent.
Many able arguments were made at that conference on behalf of the original reso-

iution. If you will allow me, I will quote from a speech delivered by Mr. Gaskin, of Kingston. He said :
I was more than surprised when I heard that the Dominion government made a preferential tariff on goods coming from England and did not stipulate they should come through Canadian ports. I remember, a number of years ago. that Canadian boats were allowed to carry grain from Chicago and Milwaukee to Port Col-borne. That grain went over the Welland road to Port Dalhousie ; it was taken by Canadian boat from Port Dalhousie and brought to Oswego. The Americans tried to stop that, and they have stopped everything since that was of benefit to our Canadian boats. I remember a number of years ago when I was captain of a steamer, just after the American war, I went into the port of Cleveland to report at the custom house, and they presented me with a bill of $140 or $150, and what do you suppose that was for ? For a war tax in the United States. That is the treatment we have been receiving from a Canadian standpoint, and I do certainly say the government made a great mistake in allowing that preferential tariff to apply to merchandise coming through the United States.
I will also quote from a speech delivered by Mr. George E. Drummond, who afterwards became, and now is, the president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. Mr. Drummond said :
It is a shame that we should permit our exports from Canada, from the west and from the centre of Canada, to go out via American ports if we can send them by Canadian ports. There is no question, as Mr. Gaskin said, that if you can fill these boats both ways that will mean cheaper freight rates for the men of the west, and that our rail-ways will meet us in a generous spirit I am perfectly confident, if the volume of trade will permit of it. For that reason I propose to support this motion. My friend from Windsor has spoken of what the Americans might do. I tell you that when the Americans meet in such a conference as this, they do not care very much what Canadians are going to do. They believe in themselves. We in this country have never had confidence in ourselves ; our banks would not be laden down with $250,000,000 earning three per cent if our people had confidence enough to develop Canadian transportation and develop Canadian mines.


Mr.  D. R.@: Wilkie, of Toronto, spoke as follows :
We have granted this privilege of preferential tariff in favour of British goods, and it was said at the time that we did this we would suffer for it, the Americans would retaliate. What have they done ? ' You are really getting on to our game, you are finding us out.'" I know leading protectionists of the United States, and they told me plainly, 'You do not know how to manage your own affairs, do not be afraid of us. Our whole policy is not dictated by a desire to injure Canada. We have our own business 'to look after, and you are only a small factor in the matter. We are not doing this to injure you, we are doing it to benefit ourselves.' Let us tjnnk the same way, let us benefit ourselves. As to the argument of Mr. Saunders, that he was forced to export his goods by way of Bos-Mr. LOGAN.
ton or New York, what does that mean? It means that owing to our allowing this preference on British goods coming through Boston and New York, instead of limiting it to goods that come only through Halifax, St. John, Quebec and -Montreal, he was forced to send his goods to Boston and New York. But force them to bring our goods through Canadian ports and you will have cheaper freight rates for Canadian produce from your own ports. I do not think we should give way in this matter. Retaliation is a barbarous word, and it is not followed out except we want to injure, and we are not going to injure the United States, and as long as we are going to benefit ourselves, we should consider ourselves.
I will not weary the House by reading any further from that*report. Shipping is certainly one of the greatest industries of any country, and to encourage the shipping industry is to encourage the building up of the nation. To build up a nation it is important to make it a maritime nation ; and in order to do that, we should assist in building up maritime ports. In this country we are doing a great deal for the west. As a representative from the east, I am willing that we should spend large sums of money in developing the west as the future granary of the world ; but we should not forget that there is an east as well as a west. It may be said that we are selfish in asking this. I claim that we are not selfish. This is a broad national question, and the people of the west should be willing to assist us in bringing goods to the maritime ports and building up Canada as a whole.	[DOT]
Now, what are the objections to this proposition ? The first is that it would increase freight rates. At the present time the freight rates fronj Great Britain to Winnipeg are the same via St. John as they are via New York, Boston or Portland. I do not see any reason why they should be increased. It is said that if we gave the freight to Canadian lines, they would increase the freight rates. That is not saying much for their patriotism, but if they showed a disposition to do so, we could hold this over them as a lever, to see that they did not. I am sure that with the number of lines running between Canada and Great Britain, there would be sufficient competition to keep the freight rates down to a reasonable level. At the present time, one of the great difficulties of Canadian shipping lines is that they do not receive a return cargo. Last year we sent $131,000,000 worth of goods to Great Britain, and of that amount we sent over $41,000,000 through United States ports, while our ships were going from Canadian ports half laden to British ports. This is not Canad-ianism ; it is not a national spirit ; and if we can do anything to encourage a Canadian, national spirit in this country, we should do so, and do so at the earliest opportunity.

It is said that we have not facilities at Canadian ports. We shall never have those facilities unless we encourage Canadian ports to provide them ; and it is the duty of this government to assist them to provide facilities for shipping goods inwards ox-outwards. The argument has been .used that we have not the facilities. I have here a letter from a member of the great pioneer steamship line of Canada, Mr. Andrew Allan. In a letter I had written to Mr. Allen I stated it was claimed that more rapid transit could be secured via New York than by the St. Lawrence route, and Mr. Allan in reply says :
I maintain, that as far as our Liverpool steamers are concerned, we are now in a position to deliver traffic to Canadian houses as rapidly by our routes as can be done by any United States port.
Mr. Allan should be in a position to speak on this matter.
A further objection to this legislation which has been raised is that by it we may offend the United States, that the legislation is too drastic as against the United States. I do not admit that Mr. Speaker, and even if the legislation is drastic as against the United States it would be only adopting the United States policy. The historic policy of the United States has been along these lines. If Great Britain had adopted the policy adopted by the United States as far as coasting law is concerned, she would have paralysed the shipping industries of that country years ago. For the past one hundred years the United States has extended its navigation laws to all its outlying possessions. As early as 1817, under President Madison, Congress first provided that commerce between the territories and possessions of the United States should be regarded as coastwise and confined to vessels built in the United States, officered by the United States citizens and flying the United States flag. This policy has been continued from that time down to the present day. Whenever territories are annexed to the United States suitable legislation has extended this policy to embrace within the provisions of the coasting laws, trade with the newly acquired territories. In 1808 the navigation laws as to transportation of merchandise were extended to Alaska. In an Act approved of April 12, 1900, dealing with Porto Rico, it is provided in section 9 as follows :
That the commissioner of navigation shall make such regulations, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, as he may deem expedient for the nationalization of all vessels owned by the inhabitants of Porto Rico on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and which continued to be so owned up to the date of such nationalization, and for the admission of the same to all the benefits of the coasting trade of the United States ; and the coasting trade between Porto Rico and the United States shall be regulated
in accordance with the provisions of law applicable to such trade between any two great coasting districts of the United States.
By an Act in reference to Hawaii approved April 30, 1900, it is provided :
That all vessels carrying Hawaiian registers on the twelfth day of August, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, and which -were owned bona fide by citizens of the United States, or the citizens of Hawaii, together with the following named vessels claiming Hawaiian register-
Naming the vessels.
-shall be entitled to be registered as American vessels, with the benefits and privileges appertaining thereto, and the coasting trade between the islands aforesaid and any other portion of the United States, shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of law applicable to such trade between any two great coasting districts.
They have extended their coasting laws half way across the Pacific and taken in the Hawaiian Islands. Later on they secured possession of the Philippine islands, at the antipodes, many many thousand miles away, and in spite of the fact that their tariff law is as stringent against the Philippine islands as against any other country ^except for a preference of 25 per cent, and in spite of the fact that they require the Philippine islanders to sell them hemp without the tax of $7.50 a ton, which is charged upon hemp sent to Canada, they have extended the coasting laws of the United States half way around the world to embrace the Philippines. Are we then to be told in Canada that we cannot adopt a policy to encourage Canadian ports and the shipment of Canadian goods by Canadian lines for fear of offending the United States of America ? Let me read the Act in reference to the Philippine islands, and I will ask members of the House to pay particular attention to section 2. It is Bill No. S 2259, United States Congress, and is as follows :
Be it enacted that on and after July 1st, 1905, no merchandise except supplies for army and navy shall be transported by sea under penalty of forfeiture thereof, between ports of the United States and ports or places in the Philippine archipelago directly or via a foreign port or for any part of the voyage in any other vessel than a vessel of the United States.
On section 2.
That on and after July 1st, 1905, no foreign vessel shall transport passengers between ports of the United States and ports or places in the Philippine archipelago either directly or by way of a foreign port under a penalty of $200 for each passenger so transported and landed,
In other words, if a Canadian vessel should carry any passengers or freight from a port in the United tSates, to the Philippine islands, one of the possessions of the United States, that freight would be liable to for-

feiture, and the boat to a fine of $200 for each passenger carried.
By the Cuban customs regulations, 1901, it is provided : that coastwise trade can only be exercised by Cuban vessels or those of the United States, so far as it relates to the transportation of merchandise.
That, Sir, is the legislation of the United States of America. The United States of America have built themselves up largely because they believe in themselves, are proud of their country and dare to legislate for their country irrespective of what other countries think or do.
We have to a somewhat limited extent adopted this policy of giving a preference to Canadian seaports. In item 608 of the tariff tea and ground coffee imported direct from the place of production, and tea and ground coffee purchased in bond in the United Kingdom are admitted free, otherwise a duty of 10 per cent is charged upon them. In item S7 of the tariff, salt from the United Kingdom or any British possession is admitted free, otherwise there is a duty varying from 5 to 7i cents per 100 pounds. In the treaty with France we provide that the goods must be transported direct from France to Canada and not by way of any other country. To that extent we have adopted this policy. It is legislation it seems to me, along the right lines, legislation along Canadian lines, to build up Canada, to build up Canadian seaports. We have gone a long distance towards giving a preference to the motherland ; let us in giving a preference to the motherland, give a preference to the ports of the Dominion of Canada and let us while we say ' Canada for the Canadians ' adopt the policy of ' Canadian seaports for Can-adihn imports.'


Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Fi-nance(. I#am glad my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) has to-day brought forward this motion of which he gave notice some time ago, not that I expect that it can be adopted immediately as part of the budget of this year,-and I do not suppose my hon. friend (Mr. Logan) now expects that,-but I feel that it is a subject on which discussion may do much good. It is a subject on which there is need of education, not only outside of the House, but, possibly inside the House. I am aware that possibly, from some points of view, objections may be raised to the motion of my hon. friend. But, for my own part I am heartily in favour of it, and, if he decides to divide the House upon it, I shall have pleasure in giving my vote in support of the motion. For the purposes of the present budget and the present condition of affairs we cannot deal with it. But I hope there will be such an educational movement on the question that, at no distant day, we may adopt it as part of our practical legislation. If that can be done at no distant day no one will rejoice more than I shall.


Hance James Logan: I think that the reasons my hon. friend has given in support of his motion are strong, and I believe that the more the subject is discussed, the more likely we are to reach the conclusion that he has reached after so much consideration. So, while I do not say. that his motion will receive the assent of the House, to take effect at once, it is a move in the right direction. Even if it is not received with unanimous approval, as I would desire to see it received, I trust that the time will soon come when we may accept it as part of a thoroughly national policy. But it is certainly a subject upon which discussion is desirable and education is necessary. I congratulate my hon. friend upon having given it the attention he has, and I repeat that, if it is necessary for his purpose to divide the House upon it, I will cordially vote in support of the motion.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: It is certainly cheering to see the Minister of Finance condemning himself and his government-for that is what his speech amounted to. He and his colleagues have had, and now have, power in their hands to carry out the spirit of this motion, and yet they have failed to do it. He admits the injustice done to Canada, and declares that he knows that wrong is done, but only says that if the House will give its sanction he does not know but that he will deal with it to the future. But, though they have had it in their power to do justice in Canada they have refrained from doing it. What their reason may be is not known to us-it is for those hon. gentlemen to explain. And it seems to me that the hon. member (Mr. Logan) who moved this motion is also worthy of censure. He has had this notice of motion on the paper for weeks. What would naturally be his object in putting it on the paper but to bring the attention of the government and of this House to the need of the change he proposes, with a view to having the government deal wi,th it in connection with the tariff ? Had it been brought forward in time, and a favourable expression of opinion from the House secured, the Finance Minister might fairly have been expected to take note of it and act upon it when he brought down his budget. But the hon. gentleman, though putting a notice upon the paper seems to have allowed the time to pass, and did not bring it forward until now after the budget speech has been delivered. And then the minister congratulates him on what he has done and declares that if the hon. gentleman presses his motion to a division he will vote for it. That is a_wonderful admission on the part of the government, and a most amusing one. I am glad to notice that at last, though late, there are some members on that side who are not prevented from expressing

tlieir views on this question by fear ot offending the United States. This everlasting cringing to the United States that we have had exemplified by members of the Reform Party during the whole time that I have been in this House, now twenty-six years, has been humiliating to every Canadian, and, if possible, more humiliating to representatives of Canada in this House. When any matter of a similar nature to this was brought before the House and it was recommended that we should take practical steps, what was generally the answei' from the other side? These hon. gentlemen told us not to exasperate the Americans or the Americans would retaliate. For twenty years we were told that by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) in regard to our proposal to prevent the Americans taking away our logs, but to compel them to manufacture them into lumber on this side. That hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) told us that the Americans would retaliate, that they would double the lumber duties, that they would prevent us from marketing our lumber-in fact that they would desfroy us if we attempted co stand up for our own interest. And we have the hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright) declaring that the whole trend of the Conservative policy was to keep the Americans in a state of annoyance and so prevent us from securing a reciprocity treaty. And we were assured that the sunny ways of the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when brought to bear upon the obdurate hearts of the Americans, would cause them to see the selfishness of their ways and amend. And that right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) signalized his entrance into office by the declaration that, to soften the hearts of the Americans and secure a reciprocity treaty, he was willing to give away all our fishing privileges on the Atlantic. But there was a sudden and unexpected howl from the maritime provinces, and we have heard nothing more of the right hon. gentleman's proposal since then. But he did everything possible to please the Americans ; the commission went into Washington to soften their hearts and bring them to a sense of their duty. But it was found to be labour in vain, like washing a nigger to make him white. At last we have come to the conclusion that it is better to look after ourselves. X often asked myself when we might hope the hon. gentlemen opposite would reach that conclusion, and they seem to have awakened to the truth at last. AY hat are hon. gentlemen sent here for ? Not to legislate for the United States, but to legislate for Canada.
I am glad that one member on that side has at last found courage to declare that he is in favour of looking after the interest of Canada in this matter. It would be
amusing, if it were not humiliating, to hear the answer of the Minister of Finance. That hon. gentleman says he will vote for the motion. He will vote in favour of doing a thing that he could have done by legislation long ago. The people will understand that, and they will judge of the hon. gertleman's sincerity.


Hon. WM. ROSS (Victoria).: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) who has just resumed his seat has always a way of his own in a debate of this kind. In his speech he did not refer to the advantage that would accrue to Canada from the adoption of the policy enunciated in this resolution.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I took it for granted that no member of parliament was so wanting in common sense that he would for a moment doubt the advantage of it.


William Ross: I am glad that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is in favour of this resolution. The objections to it that he raises might be removed by passing a Bill only to take effect from a certain time. We have the Intercolonial to St. John, and also from Montreal to Halifax, and we have in prospect, at no distant day, that great railway that is going to run from ocean to ocean. And we expect that in the winter season the trade of China and Japan to Britain and other European ports will go over that line, and that the trade from Great Britain and the continent of Europe to Oriental countries will also pass over it. But that is a question that we may leave to the future. We can be in favour of building up our own ports, the ports of Quebec and Montreal in summer and of Halifax and St. John in winter ; and I think we should all agree as one man to support this resolution, to take effect at some time that would not be detrimental to the present budget or its operation in any way. I am certainly in favour of this resolution, and I hope that some good will come out of it at no distant date.


Mr. C. B. HEYD (South Brant).: It appears to me that this matter is of too much importance to be relegated to any single private individual of the House. When you begin by law to say that nothing shall be imported into Canada from Great Britain except it comes through Canadian ports, it is too violent an interference with traffic to meet with my approval on so sudden a presentation of the case. I think the people who have their money invested in steamships and railways and who are prepared to bring goods and deliver them in Canada at the cheapest price, are, entitled to some consideration, and so are the consumers of this country. If we by law force all dutiable! goods from Great Britain to come by Canadian ships and through Canadian ports,

it will unquestionably have the effect of increasing the value of those goods to the consumers. I say it is a matter of too much importance to be considered so hastily, and I assume that before a change of such magnitude is made it will be brought in by the government itself.


Mr. W. R. BROCK (Centre Toronto).: I had hoped to get through with this session, Mr. Speaker, without your having to hear my voice, but. we have had such an exhibition of insincerity on the part of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House that I cannot keep silent any longer. When the Finance Minister was advocating the building of a railroad from the Northwest down to the sea-board he assured gentlemen on this side of the House that the patriotism of Canadians would lead them to send their goods to Canadian ports in preference to American ports. The present exhibition will confirm, the opinion that there is no sin-; cerity whatever in any of the motions brought up by gentlemen on that side of the House. I can tell the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Logan) that many merchants bring all their goods to this country through Canadian ports, and do not allow their goods to come through United States ports so far as they can help it. The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) says the effect of this resolution will be" to make goods dearer. All I can say is that I bring all the goods I can to this country through Canadian ports, and I manage to compete with other people pretty well.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I did not say it made them dearer, but it would make them dearer if they were compelled by law to come through Canadian ports.
. Mr. BROCK. I am sure the Finance Minister will give me credit for patriotism, not that I think it makes much difference, but because the Finance Minister has insisted that the farmers of the Northwest will be induced by patriotism to bill their grain 1 to Canadian ports.
credit for it, might get the credit of bringing it up himself. I would like to see him take hold of it with the same energy that he manifested with regard to the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific to Moncton. In that ease he forced the government at the point of the bayonet to fall in with his wishes ; why should he not now be just as sincere in favour of Halifax and St. John as he was in favour of Moncton ? Simply because he wanted, I suppose, to make a little political capital out of it. But if he is going to make political capital out of anything of that kind, there must be a little more sincerity than there is in this present motion.


Mr. JOHN  W.@: DANIEL (St. John city), shortly after the opening of this session, I noticed that this resolution was placed up-I on the order paper, and I have been patiently waiting for the hon. member to move it, because I understood that no one else could bring in a motion on the same line j until this one had been disposed of. I must say that I agree with the hon. gentleman who has moved it, and I regret that it has been kept back until after the [DOT] budget speech was delivered. I understood from the remarks of the Finance Minister that in case this resolution was carried by a majority of the members of the House he was prepared to introduce legislation to carry it out. Am I mistaken in my understanding ?


Mr. FIELDING.: I did not say that, i said it was a matter that needed to be discussed before any action was taken. I said, if it was proposed to put the scheme into operation at once I could not support it, but I would support it if it were proposed to bring it into effect at an early date. I did not say anything with regard to legislation at this session.


Mr. DANIEL.: Is the minister prepared now to say whether, in case this resolution is passed by a majority of this House, he will introduce legislation to give it effect?


William Stevens Fielding: Where the rates are equal. That is not a very strong call on their patriotism.


William Rees Brock: I think the hon. minister will require to hedge a good deal before he gets through. But I just wished to draw the attention of the House to this most remarkable exhibition. I think the country will see it and I know this House will see it-that there is no sincerity on the other side of the House. This notice has been long enough on the order paper to allow t(he Finance Minister to take note of it and to have made it a part of his budget speech ; but it has been put off now so that the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) who certainly deserves a certain amount of


William Stevens Fielding: We will consider that when it comes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I congratulate the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) on the manner in which he has brought forward arguments in favour of this resolution. So far as the city I represent is concerned, I feel it would be a very great advantage indeed to the port of St. John if this resolution were adopted and carried into effect by legislation. During last year, the exports from the port of St. John, totalled $15,364,735, while the imports only amounted to $5,658,281. Some mention has been made of the rates at which freight is carried both by land and sea. I would like to state, Mr. * Speaker, that a reduction of the rates over


Charles Bernhard Heyd: the ocean can only be effected by having full cargoes both ways. In the winter, steamers got out from St. John with full cargoes but they come back with very small cargoes. That trouble is grad-uajly lessening, but at the same time the business is still too one-sided. In order to have a lower freight rate, which would at the same time be a paying rate, for steamers as well as for railways, there must be cargoes both ways. We have heard complaints from time to time that the Intercolonial lias not been paying, and there have also been complaints that the Canadian Pacific Railway has not been doing a paying business from the port of St. John. If this resolution were carried into effect, there is no doubt in the world that the increase of business would be so great, both for the Intercolonial and the Canadian Pacific Railway, and their connections in the maritime provinces, that the era of deficits, at least so far as the Intercolonial is concerned, would be brought to a speedy close.
The hon. member for Cumberland has spoken of the views which Canadians generally should entertain in regard to building up of all the ports of Canada. We are all interested, apart from where we may happen to live, in this matter because the success of one part of Canada tends to increase the success of the whole. There is no doubt that the St. Lawrence ports of Montreal and Quebec are equally interested in the successful carrying out of this proposition with the ports on the Atlantic sea-board. Its advantages are not altogether confined to the ports of Halifax and St. John. There are other fine ports which, as business comes to them, will increase and the carrying out of this proposition will be a decided advantage to the sections of the country interested in these ports. I do not think there is any argument in regard to the possibility of offending the United States. As a matter of fact at the present time we are treating the United States in a far more friendly way than they are treating us. We are taking from them a much greater proportion of imports than we are exporting to the United States. We have kept our tariff low against the United States while their tariff is high against us. So that, without any further remarks, I hope that the hon. gentleman who has introduced this resolution will ask for a division of the House upon it so that we can see what the sentiment of hon. members of this House in connection with this very important matter is. Then, I hope if the reply is favourable that the hon. Minister of Finance, who has expressed himself so much in favour of this idea, will take steps to have the resolution crystallized into law.


Mr. A. A. WRIGHT (South Renfrew).: Mr. Speaker, before this debate comes to a close
I just wish to say a word or two upon this subject. It seems to me that this is rather a drastic measure, because you are undertaking to say to the merchant how he shall ship his goods whether they be going outward or inward. The merchant has difficulties enough to contend with without having to surmount such a difficulty as that. When we have given a preference to goods coming from Great Britain I would not like to see that limited in any way whatever. Let me give an illustration of how this works on outward bound goods and it will apply equally well to goods coming into this coun-trv. In our section of the country we buy large quantities of pease and rye. We get just as large a quantity of these goods into our warehouses to ship before the dose of navigation as we can. The moment navigation closes, down goes the price of grain two cents a bushel as a general thing. A few years ago when we were buying pease and rve the price dropped as usual at the close of navigation. Withifl a fortnight after the close of navigation arrangements were made so that we could ship our grain by rail to Boston and, ship it from that port. We got a lower rate than we ever got before. The consequence was that we increased the price that we were paying to our farmers by two cents a bushel and we gave them the same price that they were getting before navigation closed. If a law had been passed obliging us to export our goods by Canadian ports the farmers would have lost two cents a bushel on; every bushel of pease and rye that we purchased after the close of navigation. I wish to draw the attention of the House to this, and I also desire to point out, that this is a matter that will work both ways. It applies to exports and it implies to imports. I would like to consider this proposition very carefully before supporting it. I go for taking the shackles off trade, and relieving trade just as far as you can from1 any of its difficulties because I believe that the freer we are in our intercourse, the better it will be for us. Something has, been said about the way the United States treats us and the way we treat the United States. How did we treat the United States last year when they took the duty off coal ? Hid we do the same thing ? We kept it on; they took it off. I have nothing further to say nt the nresent time.


Mr. GEO. WT. FOWLER (King's, N.B.).: Mr. Speaker, we find in the ranks of the government party that there is still one free trader. I doubt if there is another one.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for Victoria, N.S. (Mr. Ross).


George William Fowler: I question very much about that hon. gentleman. I think that his party fealty is too strong. But, we have one hon. gentleman who is a free trader.

He does not seem to realize just what this debate Is about. He talks about the importation of pease and rye in connection with the preferential tariff. However, it is not a very unusual thing to find a Liberal member of parliament not knowing very much about the subject of the debate. I was very much surprised that the hon. minister of
Finance (Mr. Fielding) did not give us some reason he was so much in favour of this resolution which we are discussing and why he did not include this in his budget when he brought it down to this House. The hon. gentleman has expressed himself as very strongly in favour of this proposition, he is prepared to vote for it, but he gave us no reasons why he was not in favour of it when he brought down his budget proposals to this House ? Why is it ? What is the explanation of this sudden conversion ? Has the light suddenly burst upon the hon. gentleman's mind ? Has he only been converted since hearing the speech of the hon. member for Cumberland which was a very good speech although there was nothing in it in the way of inspiration ? Is it only since he heard the speech of the hon. member for Cumberland that he has become so strongly in favour of the proposition contained in this resolution ? It seems to me that if the hon. gentleman had not been trying to commit a patent fraud-I use the word not in its offensive sense-upon the country he would have given us some reason why he was compelled to forego the carrying out of the desire of his heart, some reason which prevented him from bringing in this proposal in his budget speech. Now, Sir, for my part I would like to hear some reasons given why this proposition should not be adopted by this parliament. I think the reasons given by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) and for South Renfrew (Mr. Wright) why this proposition should not be adopted were not such as to commend themselves to this House. This it seems to me would be a simple matter of justice to the ports of this country applying more particularly as it does to the Atlantic ports If the necessary facilities are not to be found at these ports now for the proper handling of this trade the government which has so much money to spend, which has so many millions to fritter away in little works where tliey are of no use to the general public might spend some of these millions to provide the ports of Halifax, St. John, Montreal and Quebec with the necessary facilities for handling this trade, and if it does it will be doing more for the benefit of the country than by giving away this monev to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, that is the view which I have taken of this question and I say that we in the maritime provinces who have made very e-rent sacrifices for the benefit of Canada are entitled to some return and if the hon. Minister of Finance had at heart the welfare' of the Mr. FOWLER.
maritime province from which he comes he would do more than express his opinion as to this proposition; he would crystallize this resolution into such legislation as would bring about the end desired.
Right Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister/. My hon. friend from Grev (Mr. Sproule) has failed this time, as he has failed at other times, to rightly appreciate the sense of the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the attitude of the government upon this question. I am not at all surprised at this and I do not think he himself is surprised ; I am afraid it is a constitutional defect with him. He saw at once the shadow of the United States falling on the path of this question. That is not where the difficulty lies.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was only referring to the argument of the hon. member (Mr. Logan) that we should not refrain from doing this for fear of the United States. That is an argument which should not be used in this House.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Well we have tried sunny ways with the United States and we have failed, and we have adopted another method which has not- been appreciated by gentlemen on the other side. The moment we found that our efforts for friendly trade relations with our neighbours did not materialize, and that our sunny ways had no effect on them, we thought we would try another policy, and we resolved among other things to build a transcontinental railway which would have the effect of increasing our trade to and from Great Britain over Canadian routes. Upon the general principle of this resolution there cannot be any difference of opinion. Even my hon. friend from Renfrew (Mr. Wright) does not dissent from the proposition involved in the motion, and the argument which he adduced simply was, that until we had more accommodation for shipping in our ports we had to use Boston and other American ports. In my judgment at all events, the way to have better facilities and accommodation in our own harbours, is to turn as far as possible all our trade to these harbours. But there is another side to this question, and it is one which my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) does not appreciate. The hon. gentleman does not appreciate that this is a business government-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman does not appreciate that we took before we leap, and that we try to ascertain where we will land before we attempt to jump. There is no doubt whatever that present the trade of Canada is every day running more and more into Canadian channels. The importations via the United

States are less this year, and my Information is that they are constantly decreasing all the time. The wholesale merchants bring almost all their importations to Canadian harbours, and according to the statistics of this year out of our total importation from Great Britain only a little over 30 per cent went to American ports. It was not so some few years ago. The day is not far distant, and my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Brock) remembers it, when more than half of all the imports into Canada came by American ports We have been able through several successive years to change this, and to cause more imports and more exports to go and come through Canada. My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Brock) knows perfectly well that while at present most of the wholesale houses import through Canadian harbours, I understand that the retail business in Toronto, and Montreal, and London and Hamilton, is still largely done through United . States ports. The retail houses wish to have their orders filled in a hyrry ; they cable for their goods and they give instructions to send them by the cheapest-not by the cheapest, but by the quickest route-so that they may have them at the earliest opportunity. This is a circumstance which we have to look into. 1 think it is possible even in that case to force trade into Canadian channels. By giving due notice to importers of all classes, that they will get the British preference if [DOT]they send their importations by way of Canada, we should, I think, accomplish that. But, if without giving notice of the policy which the government intend to pursue on this question, we at once adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule), there probably would be a greater deal of disturbance caused in certain jines ot business. Far better is it that there should be no disturbance of that kind, and that such contemplated changes should be duly heralded so that all parties may take notice of it and act accordingly. Therefore, I think it is quite proper that this discussion should take place, and that all parties should understand that the government would be actuated and guided by it, as to what its future course should be.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: This is not the first we have heard of this proposal. Did not my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) give notice of it last year, and if I remember correctly the year before. At all events the matter was before the House last year, and although the discussion upon it was imminent on many occasions, it has not been brought forward until now. The right hon. the Prime Minister has treated us to some rather unusual statements. His Minister of Finance told us at once that he was absolutely in favour of this motion, and the Prime Minister says the government will be in favour of it at some future time, because it is a business government and must make inquiry. But the Minister of Finance being in favour of it at once, he therefore cannot be a business minister. Possibly, however, the Minister of Finance is in favour of the motion and in favour of not acting upon it. Perhaps in that way his position can be reconciled with that of the right hon. gentleman. Although this question has been before the House for years and although it is now brought before the government by one of its most prominent supporters from the maritime provinces, it is remarkable there has not been an opportunity long, beJ fore this to make the inquiry to which the' right hon. gentleman refers. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance is so impressed by the advantages of this motion, that he is ready, to vote for it to-day, even if the House is divided, and even, I suppose if the Prime Minister votes against it. If the Finance Minister has been so much impressed with the advantages of this policy, it does seem a little remarkable that we have had the discussion postponed until* this late date, and that the government have not yet made that inquiry which the< Prime Minister says is necessary. One would think that a measure such as that proposed would not create any great disturbance of trade, and I certainly believe it would be very much in the interests of the maritime provinces. But I would be inclined to go a little further than my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan). I do not see any reason why we should restrict the enactment to goods entered under the preferential tariff. If the principle is good, and the Minister of Finance says it is, why should we not simply provide that goods imported through Canadian ports whether under the preferential tariff or otherwise, should have more favourable treatment, so far as our customs tariff is concerned than if they came through United States ports. That would be dealing with the matter from a general standpoint, and would not be restricting the operation of the proposal to a certain class of imports. If it is advisable to make this discrimination with regard to goods imported from Great Britain, why should we not make exactly the same discrimination in regard to goods imported from Germany, or from France, or from* Belguim, or any other country ? If the principle is good, and the Minister of Finance thinks it is, so far as British trade is concerned, why is it not equally good so' far as trade from other countries beyond the sea is concerned? The same object is to be achieved, viz. : the building up of our Canadian ports by bringing importations to this country through them. I would think that the motion should not stop short of that point.
I submit further for the consideration of the government that if they really do in-

tend to deal with this subject, and not simply to allow this motion to pass as a mere matter of form, the government would simply have one of two alternatives; either to carry out the declared will of parliament or to resign. It will only take about four words in the tariff Act to carry out what my hon. friend (Mr. Logan) suggests and it can be done in five minutes by any ordinary draughtsman. I do not understand that this is a matter upon which the government is not to have a policy ; I do not understand that this is a matter upon which the Finance Minister can vote one way and the Prime Minister another, and that the cabinet can leave the matter absolutely free to be dealt with, or not to be dealt with at all. If this House declares in favour of the resolution of my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) or if my suggestion is carried out, the tariff ought to be amended at once, and it can be done by the insertion of two sentences in the Customs Act. I do not think this is a subject with which we should play by way of passing a motion, which may mean something or mean nothing. If the words of the Finance Minister mean anything, they mean that the chief financial exponent of the government is-in favour of a policy that can be put into force in the simplest possible way during the present session. That is the position in which the matter presents itself to my mind.
My right hon. friend the Prime Minister says that the government has tried sunny ways with the United States, and it has failed. There can be no doubt about that.
I do not know that they have tried any other ways up to the present time,; because I observe that during the present year, at first they declined to extend the terms of an Order in Council permitting United States vessels to do the coasting trade between British Columbia and the Yukon, but at a later date, on the 29th March, they repent-; ed and United States vessels continue to do that trade, as they have done it during the last four or five years. Of course, I realize that there may be certain difficulties that present themselves to the government in connection with that trade.
One of the difficulties which the Prime Minister referred to-the difficulty in the retail trade of Canada-which might present itself if this policy were carried out, would probably not present itself at all if the government had been able to carry out the project of a fast Atlantic service ; because one reason why such a difficulty would occur is the lack of expeditious and cheap transportation from the mother country to Canada of such articles as would be' imported by retail merchants, not articles imported in great bulk such as are brought into this country by wholesale merchants. It is Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
very much to be regretted that the right hon. gentleman's government could not have seen fit to avoid meddling with the contract which was made by the government which preceded it. If this government had seen fit to carry out the arrangements then made, it is pretty certain that the fast Atlantic service would have been an accomplished fact long before this, and no such difficulty as that suggested by the Prime Minister this afternoon would have confronted us at this time. I agree fully with what my hon. friend from Cumberland has said as to the necessity of building up our maritime ports. When he informs us that more than $40,000,000 worth of our products went last year through American ports. I think he has placed before the House a very significant object lesson.


Hance James Logan: Will my hon. friend pardon me for a moment ? I think I have been misunderstood. The goods subject to the preference which were brought from England into Canada through American ports last year, amounted to nearly $15,000,000. The goods sent from Canada to Great Britain last year amounted to $131,202,098, of which $41,174,715 went through United States ports.


Mr.   I@: That is quite what I understood. I think that is a very significant object lession, and one which ought to make us doubly cautious, in carrying out any scheme of transportation in Canada, cautious that lest this be done in such a way as to maintain, or possibly increase, the ratio of the exportation of the products of Canada to Great Britain and to the continent of Europe by United States ports. I trust that this motion, if the government see fit to permit it to pass, will not be regarded as a mere idle form, but that the government will understand that the will of parliament has been expressed on this subject, and will proceed to carry out that will during the present session by making an amendment of a few words in the tariff.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.
Robert Laird Borden: When will the right hon. gentleman introduce the Bill ?



THE MONTREAL HARBOUR DEBT.

[Stage Direction]
On the notice of motion-
For the production of the document mentioned by the honourable member for St. Mary's division, as reported in ' Hansard ' for the present session, on page 2489, suggesting, among other things, that the Montreal harbour-debt should be assumed by the federal government.-Mr. Kemp.
Wilfrid Laurier: Stand.


Mr. JAS. CLANCY.: I have been informed that there was an understanding that this matter having come up in the form of a question, and the request having been made that the hon. member for East To-

vonto should move for an order of the House, he was promised that the papers would be brought down. This is of course the last day for moving for papers, and I hope the right hon. gentleman will assent to this motion.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would like to speak to the hon. member for East Toronto about it. I will give an opportunity to have his motion passed.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for East Toronto mentioned the matter to me the other day, and I told him that it might possibly be a motion that would require to be discussed. He said he thought not, because he had asked the right hon. gentleman, and he had understood that there would be no objection to the adoption of the motion.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, I think there will be no objection, but I would like to see the hon. member for East Toronto first.
Motion allowed to stand.



OFFICIAL OR PRIVATE CARS.

Mr. TOLTON moved :: For a return showing -
How many official or private cars have been constructed, purchased or acquired for the government since the year 1896. 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 162
authority, under what regulations or arrangement, on how many occasions, and at what cost to the country, each car has been so used?


Wilfrid Laurier: I suggest that the motion be amended by substituting the word ' 1880 ' for the words ' 1896 and 1900 ' wherever these words occur.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, aud motion as amended agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
For copies of all correspondence between any department of the government of Manitoba and any department of the government of the Dominion, relating to the selection or survey of 256,000 acres of land, earned by the former Winnipeg and Hudson's Bay Railway Company, now the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and to which the government of the province of Manitoba is entitled.-Mr. Stewart.
For copies of all papers, documents, letters, correspondence, petitions and decisions of the Department of Railways and Canals in regard to the establishment and running of a passenger train on the Intercolonial between Camp-bellton and Causapseal, and between Camp-bellton and Ste. Flavie.-Mr. Casgrain.
For copies of (a) all reports, correspondence, statements, accounts and papers, relating to seizures of binder twine since the 1st of January, 1902, and to prosecutions in respect of the charges ;	(b) the correspondence and papers
between the several departments relating to all and every such seizure, and to the prosecution of the charges ;	(c) all instructions
given to any person or persons in relation to such seizures or prosecutions ; (.d) the names, occupations and places of residence of all persons employed by or acting on behalf of the government in relation to each of such seizures, or to the prosecution of the charges ; (e) a statement of all expenses, charges or fees paid to or claimed by any person or persons, in connection with such seizures or prosecutions ; and the papers connected with such payments and claims.-Mr. Clancy.
For copies of all contracts for public works entered into by the government, which required the contractors to pay their workmen fair wages, in accordance with the fair-wage resolution agreed upon by parliament in the session of 1900 ; also the amounts of money covered by these contracts.-Mr. Ralph Smith.
For copies of all original monthly returns, reports, statements and other documents, received by or sent to the government, showing the money spent and the work performed on the breakwater at Port Morien, Cape Breton, up to the 31st of May, 1904 ; also all reports, returns, statements and documents, showing the names of the persons employed on the work in each month, and thq number of days for which each man worked in each month during the aforesaid period.-Mr. Bell.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 75) to amend the Companies Act, 1902.-Mr. Cowan.
[Stage Direction]


On the preamble.
Hon. CHAS. FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice).: When this Bill was before the committee a day or two ago, I suggested instead of clause 1, in the present form, to substitute two other clauses which I then read. At that time it was suggested by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) that these clarfses might require some further consideration, and. since that time I have received a memorandum which in his absence I may perhaps be permitted to read to the House. He suggested that the first clause as suggested seemed to be right, but the second clause which refers to Chapter 119 was wrong, he said that except as to companies formed before August 11, 1899, that section was repealed by 2 Ed. VII Chap. 15. He suggested that I should omit the words ' to prevent ' in the amendment which I had proposed.
I have considered the objections made by my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) and I think that they are perfectly in order and that it would be proper to amend the Bill by substituting one section for the two now under consideration. My suggestion would be that instead of the two sections which I then proposed to substitute for the first section we should adopt the following :
To remove possible doubt it is hereby declared that the expression ' the construction and operation of railways or telegraph or telephones ' in section 5 of the Companies Act, 1902, does not include acting as a contractor, in railway, telegraph or telephone construction, and * the construction and working of railways ' in section 3 of the Companies Act, chapter 119, revised statutes of Canada, does not include acting as a contractor in railway construction.
I think this meets the difficulty suggested by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker).


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the significance of that change ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Under the Companies Act of 1902 it is provided that incorporation by letters patent may be granted to any company for any of the purposes of objects to which the legislative authority of Canada is applicable, or rather extends, except the following :
Except the construction and working of railways or of telegraph or telephone lines or the business of banking, &c.
It appears that these words have been construed as applicable to companies incorporated for the purpose of constructing telephone and telegraph lines, for constructing railways, although they are simply contracting companies. It is in order to avoid that possible construction of the section in the present Act, that the present amendment is proposed, that is in order to gi|ve authority to incorporate by letters patent) Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
companies to construct railways, telegraph and telephone lines. That is the object of the present amending Bill as I understand it from my hon. friend from Essex (Mr. Cowan) and if that be the case then I see no objection to the amendment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Some years ago we had a good deal of trouble arising through the operation of constructing companys formed for the purpose of building railways. It could hardily be said that the railway corporation formed itself into a construction company, but the same parties as were in the railway company, with one or two others, formed the construction company, and so manipulated the contracts as to secure the government bonuses and everything 'else possible for themselves. It did not turn out very creditably either to the parties or to the country. And I remember that a strong feeling was aroused against that method ot operation. It seems to me that this proposed amendment will allow the formation of these constructing companies ; and, when we consider the possibility of that in connection with the new transcontinental railway, it seems all the greater reason why we should avoid this danger.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I may explain that my attention has not been drawn to any need for an amendment of the law as we have it. My only object was to try to give effect to what I understand to be the intention of the promoter of the Bill. But I have absolutely no interest in it, and have never been asked to introduce legislation of this kind-no representations have been made to the government, to my knowledge, in favour of such a change. I am quite willing that the matter should be postponed and dealt with hereafter if desired. If the hon. member who promotes the Bill is not sufficiently interested in it to be here when it comes up, I have no desire to press it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not saying that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) wishes to press the matter. But I have heard a good deal of discussion on this subject before, and it seemed to me that this amendment was all the more worthy of attention because of the very important scheme for a transcontinental railway that is now before the country. I do not know whether this Bill is or is not intended to have any connection with that matter, but the circumstances might create suspicion that there was some other object in view than that which was given to the House.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I wish to make it clear that I have nothing whatever to do with the Bill, and that my interference is solely directed to trying to put the Bill in workable form. In order to prevent any doubt arising, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, so that the matter may be fully considered.


Mr. HAGGART.: I do not see any possible objection to a company being formed to construct a railway, or a telephone, or a telegraph line. Surely these are things that a company could be properly formed for the purpose of doing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the cases to which 1 have referred, this state of things was shown : The railway company got a bonus from the government, then they formed a construction company, virtually of their own membership. They built the railway through contractors, but, though they got the bonuses, they did not pay the workmen and subcontractors in full.	.
Then when an effort was made to follow the matter, it was found that the money had been handed over to a company entirely outside of parliament, and one that we could not hold responsible, because, it was said, they were not the parties who were given the original charter as a railway company. So the parties in the construction company got the money, and those who did the work never were paid. Afterwards, I believe, parliament had to come to the rescue of some of the parties who had not been paid, and had to make provision for the payment of at least a portion of the debt. But the centre of the difficulty was the construction company, and it always seemed to me it was a very bad principle to allow the intervention of such companies. This amendment, being proposed at this particular time, naturally creates suspicion that what was done in past years will be repeated under this amendment.
Progress reported.



BAILWAY ACT, 1903-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the order being called :
House in committee on Bill (No. 2) to amend the Railway Act, 1903.-Mr. Lancaster.
Mr. E. A. LANCASTER.: This Bill has been before the Railway Committee. When It was referred to that committee there was an understanding between the Minister of Justice and myself that it would be reached again this session, if necessary, on a government day. Several hon. gentlemen on both sides have asked me, as this is to be the last private members' day, to facilitate the bringing forward of other orders that stand lower than this on the order paper. If the understanding between the Minister of Justice and myself still holds, and this matter can be dealt with later in the session, I shall be glad, as a matter of courtesy to these hon. gentlemen, to allow this matter to stand. If this Bill is gone into it will probably take up a good deal of time. I wish, so to speak, to appeal from the committee to the House-as the committee has reported recommending that the Bill be not passed-and that will take some time. But I am willing to postpone the consideration 162i
of this .measure if it can be taken up on some government day.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think my hon. friend {Mr. Lancaster) had better go on. We may not have an opportunity later in the session.
House went into committee on the Bill.
On section 1,


Charles Fitzpatrick: This Bill was referred to the Railway Committee of the House, and they rejected it. My hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) comes here by way of appeal, and I think he should give reasons for his appeal.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: sides of the highway, but not affecting the highway at all. X tried to impress that upon the committee, but no attention was paid to my remarks. The gentlemen in the committee argued that because the Railway Commission had power to order protection to the highways my Bill was not necessary, because, if the Railway Commission ordered that protection, the railways would be bound to furnish it. Now the Act as it stands to-day does nothing of the kind. The Act requires railways only to fence or to protect. But the Supreme Court has decided that fencing means merely fencing the right of way up to the highway and stopping at the cattleguards, turning the fences in at right angles to the cattleguards and stopping there. That decision was made last November. True, the learned gentleman who was before the Railway Committee promised us that the case was going to the Privy Council, and that therefore it was not necessary to amend the law now. To begin with, that case does not come within the limits, because it is an Ontario case, and you have to have $4,000 in dispute in an Ontario case before you can take it to the Privy Council. I do not know whether it can possibly go there or not. But we must not assume that the Privy Council is going to overrule a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, nor can we assume that this House will override the Railway Committee, for instance. We presume, as the Minister of Justice indicates, that the decision of the Railway Committee is right, and he told me emphatically that the onus is on me to show wherein the Railway Committee is wrong. A statement that the case of McKay and the Grand Trunk is going to the Privy Council does not do us any good until we have evidence that the Privy Council has reversed the decision of the Supreme Court. Now it was argued in that case that the company had not properly fenced the railway because they had not properly protected the crossing, that fencing does not mean only up to the highway, or else the section was senseless, because it was dealing with the rate of speed and with the question of protection; and it was argued before the Supreme Court that it must have meant the kind of fencing as protecting, because the section was dealing with the rate of speed. But the Supreme Court has laid down that the fencing as described in the Act means nothing but a fence of the right of way as between adjoining proprietors. Now the present law requires that the railways must do that, or else they must protect, but they need not do both. But the Railway Committee paid no attention to that consideration. and I ask this House to pay some attention to it. My first amendment is that the word ' or ' should he struck out and the word ' and ' inserted. The effect would be to make the company provide both the fencing and the protection. The committee


Edward Arthur Lancaster: thought that a protection ordered by the Railway Committee in a special case was better protection than a general law, which I am contending for. But X am trying to impress upon this House that as the law stands to-day no matter what the Railway Commission may order you would not have any protection according to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. Now the Supreme Court has decided two things : They have decided that fencing means fencing the right of way and turning into the cattle guards. Every one knows that is not protection whatever to people on the sidewalk or on the highway. In the second place, the Supreme Court decided that protection is such as is ordered by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council now replaced by the Railway Commission. Now even if the contention were correct that it is sufficient to have an order from the Railway Commission, still, unless you grant the first part of my amendment, striking out the word 'or' and putting in the word 'and' you have no protection. The railway company will say :	We are only
bound! to fence or to protect. We have fenced, and we were ordered to protect, but your statute limits the liability to fencing or protection. If we do one or the other we have done all that we are required to do. The statute only requires us to make an alternative for fencing, but not to do both. I do not think the members of this House should leave the law in its present uncertain state. The 214 members of this House are sent here to legislate in what they believe to be in the interests of the people, and they are better able to judge of that than any learned counsel who may be sent before the committee. It is not the duty of a railway lawyer to instruct the members of the House in their duty to their constituents. The contention of the counsel in the Railway Committee was that, if the commission ordered certain protection at a crossing that that was all that was required, and would be better than a general law. I say again that even if that contention were sound, still the first part of my amendment must be granted, or else the railway will not be liable for failing to afford sufficient protection.
I am satisfied that if we had read it more carefully last year when we were in committee for seven or eight weeks on this Bill, many of us pretty well tired of the Railway Bill, we would have understood the effect of it better than we did. I admit that those who were in the House taking part in the discussion upon the general consolidation of the railway law were tired and * being urged by other lion, gentlemen in the House to hurry up and get through with it, we did not notice the difference between the word ' or ' and ' and.' I would have contended for what I am contending for now had I noticed it. It was a mistake on

the part of the House. X think it was a mistake on the part of the then Minister of Railways and Canals. His attention was not drawn to it and he may have read it as if ' or ' meant ' and,' or he may have read it: as if the word ' or ' included both. The word ' or ' ought to be stricken out and the word 'and' be put in. It would be more satisfactory perhaps if I should pause and not say anything about the other matter until we consider the point as to whether we should not have the other protection which is provided for in addition to the fencing.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The Act as we now have it reads as follows :
227. No train shall pass in or through any thicklv peopled portion of any city, town or village, at a speed greater than ten miles an hour unless the track is fenced or properly protected in the manner prescribed by this Act, or unless permission is given by some regulation or order of the Board. The Board may limit such speed in any case to any rate which it deems expedient.
The suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) is that between the word ' fenced ' and ' properly ' in the third line the word ' and ' should be substituted for the word ' or ' which would make the section read in this way :
No train shall pass in or through any thickly peopled portion of any city, town or village, at a speed greater than ten miles an hour, unless the track is fenced and properly protected in the manner prescribed by this Act.
This protection is proposed in addition to the fencing provided for by section 199 of the Railway Act which section provides that:
199. The company shall erect and maintain upon the railway fences, gates and cattle guards, as follows
(a)	Fences of a minimum height of four feet six inches on each side of the railway.
(b)	Swing gates in such fences, of the minimum height aforesaid, with proper hinges and fastenings, at farm crossings.
Then paragraph 2 provides that:
Such fences, gates and cattle guards shall be suitable and sufficient to prevent cattle and other animals from getting on the railway.
My hon. friend proposes that in addition to these fences it would be necessary for the railway' company to provide protection in the manner prescribed by the Act because he proposes that the speed shall not be greater than ten miles an hour :
Unless the track is fenced and properly protected in the manner prescribed by this Act.
Let me draw the attention of the committee to sections 184, 186 and 187 which sections provide that no railway may cross a highway unless upon leave first having been
obtained from the Railway Commission, which leave is made subject to such regulations as the Railway Commission shall see fit to adopt for the purpose of protection. Then, in respect to a railway which is al-i ready in existence upon application made by the town or village, under section 187, the board may order the railway company within a specified time to provide such protection as it thinks proper under the circumstances.


George William Fowler: Why do you make it necessary for the people to make an application ? Why not have the law so that the railway is bound to take proper precautions without coming to the Railway Commission ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The railway company is bound to observe the law just as all other corporations are ? Section 25 provides that the Railway Commission may make such provisions as it deems proper :
With respect to the rolling stock, apparatus, cattle guards, appliances, signals, methods, devices, structures and works, to be used upon the railway so as to provide means for the due protection of property, the employees of the company and the public.
So that on the whole the provision of the Railway Act is that no railway can cross a highway without permission having first been obtained from the Railway Commission and that permission to cross the highway is made subject to such regulations as the board deems advisable under the circumstances to properly protect the public using the highway. In addition to that it a crossing already exists upon written application to the board, the board will make such provision in respect to any such crossing as is necessary for the protection of the public and the board may go, under section 25, to any length it deems proper and make any regulation it deems necessary. The board has full jurisdiction and control over any railway crossing that is not now in existence as well as those which are already in existence. The board will exercise its judgment in respect to any such crossing in view of the existing facts at a particular place, but if you adopt my hon. friend's suggestion what is the result going to be ? You will require at each crossing a fence, you will require in addition to that the protection provided for by the commissioners under the statute and then you will require a watchman. You will require the protection that the Railway Commission may deem proper to give and then you will insist upon a watchman being added to that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I purposely evaded that question altogether until the question of ' or ' and ' and ' was settled. Unless we

substitute the word ' and ' for the 'word ' or ' we will not get that protection that the hon. minister describes.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not agree with my hon. friend. My hon. friend's argument is that if notwithstanding that the board orders protection to be placed at a crossing an accident happens because of non-compliance with that order no liability results. I cannot agree with that. If the board orders proper protection to be placed at a railway crossing, and the company does not comply with the order of the board and as a result an accident occurs, clearly the company is liable for the damages which may result.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would the hon. gentleman have any objection substituting the word ' and ' for ' or'?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not think it is necessary.
Mr. LANCASTER, it ?
Is there any harm in


Charles Fitzpatrick: We have had this up before. We have discussed it at some length in the House. The hon. gentleman is quite right to push the matter as strenuously as he pleases. I cannot do any more than state my views in the committee. The matter was discussed and discussed before the Railway Committee and now he is back here again. I have expressed my view and I cannot change my mind about that The liability of the company is perfectly clear. McKay vs. the Grand Trunk Railway Company was not decided upon this statute. It was decided upon the previous statute. It was a ease decided by a majority of the Supreme Court reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal of Ontario.


George William Fowler: Apart from the words ' or ' or ' and ' I think there is a larger question as to whether the people of the village or town should be compelled to go before the Railway Commission to get an order compelling the railway company to do what the railway company should do and what there should be a statute to compel the rail-v ay company to do. It seems to me that the only objection that there could possibly be to this amendment is that the speed of ten miles an hour is too great. There is too great a danger to human lives occasioned by railway trains running through towns and villages or through districts which are thickly settled at ten miles an hour. In the town in which I live, in which there are 2,000 people and which the Intercolonial Railway runs through, there are neither gates nor watchmen. There is great danger to life, and people have been killed.


Charles Fitzpatrick: This would not help my hon. friend.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 


George William Fowler: No, I am only giving this as an illustration. What is true of that town is true of other towns that are crossed by railways. I will take advantage of this occasion to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Em-merson) to the fact that in the town of Sussex there is no protection. I have seen the English mail go through at the rate of sixty miles an hour.


Wilfrid Laurier: The English mail ?


George William Fowler: The train coming from Halifax ; rushing across the main streets of the town at a tremendous rate of speed. The thing is entirely wrong.


Mr. EMMERSON.: It is always on Sunday when the people are at church and no one around the streets.


George William Fowler: It is only a short time ago that in a neighbouring town two persons who were driving home from church were killed at a crossing. What applies to Sussex, applies to other towns. I fail to see why this provision should not be made statutory, so that it would not be necessary for these small towns and villages to go to the expense and trouble of appearing-before the Railway Commission.


Mr.   I@: The difficulty from my standpoint is that under the law as declared by the Supreme Court of Canada, if a railway company has its tracks properly fenced along the lands of adjacent proprietors, the trains can run at any speed over highway level crossings. Perhaps an amendment like this would meet the difficulty, and I suggest it to the Minister of Justice :
But unless the board otherwise orders, the speed at any rail level crossing of a highway in a city or town, or in a thickly peopled portion of an incorporated village, shall not exceed ten miles an hour.
Where there are level crossings there should be restriction on the speed of trains, but according to the decision of the Supreme Court there is practically no restriction. The Minister ot Justice doubts as to the correctness of that decision, but until it is over-rilled by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or until its effect is taken away by legislation, it will remain the law of the land. There appears to be no limit at all to the speed at which trains may pass over a level highway crossing so long as the bell is rung, and so long as the lands of adjacent proprietors are properly fenced. The fencing of the lands does not help the situation at the crossings, and when a train is running twentv or thirty miles an hour, the ringing of the' bell may not be sufficient protection. Some ten or twelve years ago, a very respected old gentleman, a prominent citizen of my pro-

vince, whose hearing was somewhat impaired, was instantly killed at one of these crossings by a train running at a very excessive rate of speed. In countries which are more advanced than ours, level crossings are not permitted. It is most unusual to find them in Great Britain. In all my travels there I have only seen one or two, and then in the most remote parts of the country.


Mr. CLARKE.: And they are protected by gates.


Robert Laird Borden: Oh, yes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They are very common in the United States.


Robert Laird Borden: They are. If we have to permit them here in Canada it does seem to me proper that there should be some restriction upon the speed at which trains shall run over these level crossings.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Representing, .as I do, the locality in which one of these accidents occurred, I certainly believe that in justice to the residents there some arrangement should be made to place a watchman and gates at that crossing. I sincerely hope that the Railway Commissioners will take that matter into their serious consideration. The people who were killed in the accident referred to, were driving home from the fall fair ; the train was going at a much faster rate than usual, and they were unable to get out of the way. The Ontario courts awarded damages and in the Supreme Court, while one judge upheld the decision of the lower courts, three judges were against it and it was reversed. These people have been put to a great deal of expenses in endeavouring to obtain justice, and in order to prevent such accidents in future, we should legislate here that there should be more protection at these crossings.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The promoter of this Bill has perhaps unintentionally, but at all events very unfairly reflected upon the attitude of the committee. The committee gave this Bill fair consideration, and there was no disrespect shown to the Bill, or its promoter. The law now reads :
No train shall pass in or through any thickly peopled portion of any city, town or village, at a speed greater than ten miles an hour, unless the track is fenced or properly protected in the manner prescribed by this Act ; or, unless permission is given by some regulation or order of the hoard. The board may change such speed in any case to any rate which it deems expedient.
If the law were amended as proposed, it would read :
No train shall pass in or through any thickly peopled portion of any city, town or village, at a speed greater than ten njiles an hour, unless the track is fenced or properly protected in the
manner prescribed by this Act, or unless permission is given by some regulation or order of the board. The board may change such speed in any case to any rate which it deems expedient ; and wherever in any city, town or incorporated village any railway crosses on the 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 said crossing to warn all persons using the highway of approaching trains.
This matter was considered by the Railway Committee from the standpoint of the Railway Act of last session which has only been in operation for a year, and which made provision for protecting crossings throughout the country. For this parliament to pass an arbitrary enactment such as is proposed by this Bill would create a hardship and would involve no greater protection


George William Fowler: In view of the decision of the Supreme Court on the construction of the word ' fencing,' will the hon. gentleman say that the present law is effective ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will deal with that in a moment. I was saying that the railway company dealt with this Bill from the standpoint of the Railway Act of last session which made proper provision for restricting the speed of trains in towns and villages. Now he proposes an amendment which, if carried into effect, would mean that If there were a watchman there, no matter how thickly peopled or well settled it might be, a train could go through that town or city at an unlimited speed. The very case which has been cited arose out of an accident that occurred because of the negligence of a watchman. The presence of a watchman is not at all times a safeguard against accidents. There will be accidents although there are watchmen. It is so along the line of the Intercolonial Railway. We have patent semaphores and also watchmen at important crossings ; yet accidents occur and people are injured and sometimes killed. But this abitrary enactment which does not provide for adequate safeguards in thickly-settled sections, Is to my mind objectionable legislation. Moreover it requires a watchman at every crossing in every town anil village in every section of the country. My hon. friend lias referred to the town in which he lives. Take an illustration from another section in his vicinity. There is a railway running from Havelock In the county of King's, N.B., to Elgin In the county of Albert. It runs from one point to another in the morning, and returns in the evening. I do not know that it is ever guilty of speed exceeding ten miles an hour ; but the Bill of my hon. friend would require that railway to have a watchman at every crossing in the villages through which it passes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If it exceeds ten miles [DOT] an hour.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It does sometimes exceed ten miles an hour. It cannot have a watchman on tap, for special occasions; but it must have a watchman at each crossing during the whole season.


George William Fowler: I would remind my hon. friend that those villages are not incorporated, and therefore do not come uuder the Act.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Some of them are. Take the town of Sackville, which is an incorporated town. The town from which my hon. friend comes has within the last few weeks, I believe, been raised to the dignity of an incorporated town. It would be absurd to say that all crossings are dangerous. It is within the knowledge of hon. gentlemen opposite that at many crossings, even in incorporated towns, there is no possible danger, while at other crossings in the same towns it would be necessary to have protections. Where the view is obscured it is very necessary that there should be protection sometimes even in addition to a watchman. It seems to me, therefore, that it woluld be entirely arbitrary to have a provision such as this, requiring that at all level crossings, within the limits of every incorporated town and village, watchmen should be placed.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would the hon. Minister of Railways agree to the Bill if I inserted in it the words ' thickly-peopled ' ? Let us see what we are fighting. I understand the hon. Minister to argue that if a place were thickly-peopled, or the buildings were constructed close to each other, so that the view would be obscured, it would be necessary to have this protection. I have drawn this provision on the assumption that the view is generally obstructed in an incorporated town or village. If the hon. Minister of Railways can find an odd crossing here or there where the view is not obstructed as much as at others, it does not follow, because of that unique and exceptional instance, that the railways should be allowed to go on killing people. The hon. gentleman is evidently not keeping pace with the times with regard to the number of accidents that happen. You can hardly take up a newspaper without reading an account of a man being killed at a railway crossing. Railway people may say that he was careless or was guilty of contributory negligence ; but that statement does not prevent the accidents occurring. If the minister thinks my Bill too drastic, and is content to have it with the words ' thickly-peopled ' inserted in it. I am willing to make that amendment. This parliament has solemnly declared that there should be some protection for people in the thickly-settled portions of cities, towns and villages. That Act has been in force since 1888, and last year parliament declared that there should be some special protection provided. If some such amendment as mine is not


Edward Arthur Lancaster: made, that whole section should be repealed, because it has no effect; it does not accomplish anything The hon. gentleman says, you can get protection by obtaining a special order from the Railway Commission. If that is so, there is no need of this section. Why do the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Railways not unite to strike out that whole section. What does it mean ? It has always been proposed to provide some general protection to the people in the thickly-peopled portions of cities, towns and villages. I admit that I have gone a little farther by-declaring that every crossing in a city, town or village is in a thickly-settled district. If I cannot get that much, let us at any rate do something to save some of these lives.
Let us put in the words ' thickly peopled ' and then we will be consistent with the Act as it is now. The Act surely means something. It says that trains are not to exceed 10 miles an hour when passing through any jthickly peopled portion of any city, town or vilage. That has been the law since 1888, and last year it was unanimously reenacted by this House. What does parliament intend by that ? What evil are they trying to remedy, what danger are they trying to avert ? Surely it is the danger of trains going at a fast rate over the level crossings described in the Act. The object of the section is surely that people who approach a crossing in a town or village shall have a right to expect that trains will not pass over it at a rate in excess of 10 miles an hour according to the legislation of last year, or 6 miles an hour according to the law as it was prior to that time. With this section in force people will of course conclude that a train has no right to run at that rate, uhless there is some protection at the crossing, and seeing a train approaching at a more rapid rate they naturally conclude that there is a portection and so possibly drive on to death or injury and in doing so,
I do not believe they are guilty of recklessness. I appeal to the Minister of Railways; he seems to be trying to do what I am, but he does not agree with my method. Let us see if I cannot agree with his. He suggests that we should put in ' where the view is obstructed watchmen' or something should be ordered if trains are going 50 miles an hour as they are going every day in my part of the country, some protection should certainly be provided. If the hon. minister had been in Grimsby a little over a year ago, he might have seen the public funeral of three young people, who while going home from church were killed at a level crossing by a train going at the rate of 50 ;miles an hour. |The train does not stop between St. Catharines and Hamilton and I am sure if the minister had witnessed that funeral he would have thought that some law was necessary. Our object is not to make railways liable for damages for accidents that may occur

but to prevent accidents happening. The railways will not make any effort to prevent accidents or to do anything but make money out of the people, and to make fast travel unless they are compelled to do so. The Minister of Kailways seems to agree that where the view is obstructed watchmen would be necessary. Then what is the harm in saying that a watchman is necessary and why should we have to go through the form of multiplying the work of the Railway Commission and having an order issued in each specific case ? We have a declaration in the law now, even if my amendment is thrown out, that trains are not to exceed 10 miles an hour in thickly peopled portions of cities, towns and villages. Surely if they do that some one should be responsible for any damage that may be caused by such excess, or liable to punishment for breach of that law. The minister thinks that where the view is obstructed and the place thickly peopled there should be a watchman. Let the Minister of Railways help me no matter if I am a member of the opposition. We are all Canadians and want to save Canadian lives. Let him help me to construct a statute according to my view. Let him put ' thickly peopled ' and ' where the view is obstructed,' and leave it to a court to find the fact. Let him make such an amendment to the Railway Act and it will do more to make him popular as Minister of Railways than anything he has done. It must be i-emembered that all cities, towns and vilages are thickly peopled. Villages are not incorporated until they are thickly peopled.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Does my bon. friend think he has omitted the words ' thickly peopled ? '


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The words 'thickly peopled ' are not in my amendment.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Read it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The statute says :
No train shall pass in or through any thickly peopled portion of any city, town or village at a rate exceeding ten miles an hour, unless the track is fenced or properly protected.
And so on. And I add :
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 he exceeded, unless the railway company keeps a watchman at such crossing to warn all persons using the highway of approaching trains.
I drew the amendment and I thought I knew what was, in it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I adhere to what I said ; I have the Bill before me. Why do the words ' thickly peopled ' in the first part of the section not apply to this ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I said not five minutes ago that the words were in the original law but not in mine.


Charles Fitzpatrick: They are in the
section you are amending.
Mr. LANCASTER, My hon. friend might be serious ; some of us are serious. The Minister of Justice need not think that by quibbling he will knock me off my feet, because I have been in as much trouble as 1 am now, and have got out of it. I want to treat things seriously and I want them treated seriously. I stated that the words ' thickly peopled ' were in the original law, and he objects, because I do not limit it by putting in the words ' thickly peopled portion ' in my amendment ? But this Bill provides that in cities, towns and villages, watchmen shall be provided at rail level crossings where the speed of ten miles an hour is exceeded. The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Railways find fault with the exact construction of the sentences in this Bill, but they tacitly admit that the object is to avoid the destruction of life at these crossings, and that we do not want the rate of ten miles an hour to be exceeded without some one being liable. If the Minister of Justice thinks that because the railways will be bound to do one thing or the other that, therefore, they will be bound to do both, he cannot regard it as of any disadvantage to put in the word ' and' instead of the word ' or, ' and then the language of the section will be what we both think it ought to be. If the Minister of Railways thinks that I am calling for watchmen to be stationed where they are not necessary, I am willing to insert tne words ' thickly peopled portion of ' before ' cities, towns or incorporated villages. ' I am willing to accept what I can get, if I cannot get all I want. Let .us save as many lives as we can. I am willing, if the Minister of Railways desires it. to insert ' where the view is obstructed. ' Those are his words, and I suppose he used them advisedly. If he desires the Bill to be amended in this way, I suppose he thinks that the principle of the Bill will prevail. It is because the view is obstructed in all cities, towns and incorporated villages that this amendment is necessary. In every thickly peopled place the view is obstructed by buildings and the hearing is obstructed by the noises of the city, town or village. Let me tell the Minister of Justice that people who are injured at railway crossings, or the representatives of those who are killed do not wish to come down here to the Supreme Court to have an argument by eminent counsel as to the construction of the word ' or ' and the word ' and, ' in order to ascertain whether the member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) was right when he said that ' or ' meant or, or whether the Minister of Justice was right when he said that the word ' or ' meant and.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I did not say so.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then, if it does not mean ' and, ' we are not giving tlie protection that the Minister of Justice said we are giving. What is the use of having anything in the law with regard to the protection of crossings at rail level if the railway company can plead : It is true we have not protected the crossing as the law required, but we have fenced the right of way up to the highway and turned the fence into the cattle-guard, and the Supreme Court has decided that that is ail that we have to do- we are bound to fence or to protect, bound to do one or the other-and, so long as we do either, we can kill as many people as we like at these crossings ? The law provides that the railway shall run at a slower rate of speed at these crossings than elsewhere. But under the decision of the Supreme Court, in effect, that section does not mean anything ; it does not accomplish anything. Because I think the Minister of Justice will agree that, according to his own argument, they are bound to fence, under certain sections, and they are bound to protect under certain other sections, if an order of the Railway Commission is given directing them to do so. What can be the meaning of this section if it is not that at these particular points, these level crossings, they are not to run as fast as at other places ? Because it is at these points that the danger is, a danger to which ail classes of the community is exposed ; the farmer going to market, the labourer going to work, the child going to school, all classes going to or coming from church-for it was in returning from church one evening after dark that these people of whom I have spoken were killed at the crossing at Grimsby. Now, there is another point that I have not yet mentioned and that nobody else, so far as I know has said anything about. And, when I state it, some hon. members on the other side who are now laughing, as if this were all a joke, may think that there is something in it. Suppose that a farmer is accustomed to enter a city by a certain road on which there is a level crossing with a watchman to warn people of the approach of trains. Is it not the most reasonable thing in the world to believe even if he changes his route and crosses the railway at another street, he will, unthinkingly depend upon being warned if the train is approaching ? And it is not reasonable that we should make some general rule upon which the people can depend, and not compel a man, when he approaches a level crossing in a city, town or village, to try to recall to his memory whether this is one of the crossings for which the railway commission has ordered protection, or whether it is one where the public cross entirely at their own risk ? But that is what this statute will mean if you do not make some law that applies to all cities, towns and incorporated villages. Is there an hon. gentleman here who does not' believe that it


Charles Fitzpatrick: would be safer to guard every highway crossing in a city, town or village, so that people might know exactly what' they\ have to rely upon ? Of course, in the open country, there is not the same need, because, the place not being ' thickly populated, ' there are no buildings to obstruct the view and no noises to interfere with one hearing approaching trains. Why should there be a watchman, for instance, at Depot street, in Grimsby, and no watchman at Elizabeth street a hundred yards away and at a point as thickly populated as the other if they were both on the level of the highway? Surely the simplest, most eflieient way would have been to have one rule which would apply easily to all places under similar conditions. It is true, that watchmen will cost the railway company something. That was the whole contention of the counsel that appeared before the Railway Committee-that this amendment would cost them money. But they get the use of the highway for nothing, and it seems to me only reasonable that they should expect to pay some toll in order to provide means to prevent people from being killed who wish to use the highway.
While it is going to cost them money to do it, it will not cost people their lives. They say it will cost them $2.70 at each crossing during the twenty-four hours, and they multiply that by all the level crossings in the country, and say that it would cost them a million or a million and a half of money, and therefore we should not impose this costly legislation upon them. But in the same breath the counsel for the railways argued that there was no need of this law, because they were going to convert all their level crossings into overhead or underground crossings. Yet they did not seem to see that the moment they converted the level crossing into an underground or overhead crossing my law would not apply to them. That is the sort of argument you get from railway counsel arguing before the Railway Committee why a public Bill should not pass. They say : We are going to convert all our level crossings as fast as we can into crossings that are not on the level ; and in the same breath they say it will cost them so much money to keep watchmen at each of these level crossings, and therefore we ought not to impose that burden upon them. Now, they cannot find fault with us if we accept their own statement. As soon as they convert their crossings they can take away their watchmen. In the older parts of the empire, around London, England, where I was born, you did not find a level crossing unless there was a watchman with a flag.


An hon. MEMBER.: But you are a foreigner.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I may be, in the premier's opinion, but as long as I am a 1 member of this House of Commons I

am going to speak in favour of the people who sent me here. In England these watchmen are either one-armed or one-legged, as a rule, because when a railway employee gets maimed the companies make him a watchman at a crossing-pension him in this way ; and so he saves life while he is there, and makes a living, and at the same time the railways become popular with the people, because they do- not kill them. Now, this parliament might teach the railways of this country something by adopting this legislation ; we could teach them that although they are not bound at present, and would not necessarily be bound if this Act were passed, to employ men as watchman that they happen to have maimed, still if they choose to pension their men in that way they could -well do it, and at the same time preserve the lives of the people crossing their railways and avoiding accidents for damages. Now, I want to impress upon the Minister of Railways what I said before I sit down. It may be that I am not advocating this measure irsthe best manner, it is possible that in my earnestness, and in my desire to accomplish what I think is right, I am not arguing my cause with the suavity possessed by the 'Minister of Justice or the Minister of Railways. This is not a party question, and I hope that the protection of the people's lives will never become a party question in this country ; therefore, I ask the ministers and the House to consider a little further what I have said about this measure ; to ask themselves whether, after having put in the words ' thickly peopled and where the view is obstructed,' they have done any harm by this legislation ? as it now' stands, the legislation is not practical. To say that a railway train must not exceed ten miles an hour in a certain place and yet to say at the same time that thejr are not liable if they do exceed that rate unle'ss they have got an order from some authority to say that they shall not exceed it unless on certain conditions-that is round-about legislation, and it will give rise to losses and cause trouble. We have here in my amendment a clear declaration that in certain places that are thickly peopled, and where the view is obstructed, they are bound to have a w'atchman to warn the people of approaching trains, otherwise they cannot exceed ten miles an hour. Then there w'ill he no question that if they want to run their trains faster than ten miles an hour they must employ watchmen.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is only one difficulty that I see with this amendment, and it is a serious one. Would the hon. member say what w'ould he the proper protection required by the Act supposing we substituted ' and 'for ' or ' ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Six o'clock.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I will answer the question after recess.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
.Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. LANCASTER, jir. Speaker, w'hen the- committee rose at six o'clock my hon. friend the Minister of Justice asked me if I would tell him at eight o'clock what the effect of my amendment w'ould be. As I understood him, he wanted me to say what protection -would be the result of my amendment. My answer is that the effect of my amendment that at all these crossings on the rail level where trains exceed ten miles an hour w'ithin the limits of cities, towns and incorporated villages, there will he a watchman.


Charles Fitzpatrick: What I wanted to know was if you substituted ' and ' for ' or ' what -would ' properly protected ' mean ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Without any other amendment ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No other amendment.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The effect would he that the only protection that there would be at these crossings would he such protection as is ordered by the Railway Commission under some of those different sections which the hon. Minister of Justice referred to this afternoon.


Charles Fitzpatrick: You would not be any further ahead.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We would be this much farther ahead, that if we did go to the trouble to get an order from the Railway Commission it would have to be carried out, and if the railway company did not protect under that order and under the requirements with the words ' and ' inserted in the section, they would be liable. If we do not have the word ' and ' in the Act and we get an order from the Railway Commission the railway company would be in a position to say we are not bound both to fence -and protect, because we are only bound to fence or protect. We have our fences up to the highway and turned into the cattle-guards, so that we are not liable under the circumstances. With my whole amendment there would be more protection, the railway company would be obliged to protect by a watchman at all those crossings on the rail level where their trains exceeded ten miles an hour within the limits of cities, towns and incorporated villages and in addition they would be obliged to furnish such other protection as in any special case an application was made to and an order granted by the Railway Commission. My law would not affect them at all unless they exceeded ten miles an hour. The Railway Commission have it in their power to keep their trains1 down in these places under ten miles an hour or

else to put on a watchman if my amendment carries.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), was good enough to say that we all desired the same thing, that is to lessen the danger in respect to level railway crossings. I think we all 'have that object in view. It is only a difference as to the methods to be pursued. It seems to me that the proposed amendment of my hon. friend is objectionable from two or three standpoints. I have already explained briefly in what way, but I would give a farther reason, and it is that it would limit the discretion and power of the Railway Commission. If there is a dangerous crossing, whether it is within the limits of any city, incorporated town, or village, or whether it is through the country generally and it is brought to their notice they have the power to order in respect to that particular crossing the railway company to afford all the protection that may be necessary.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Can they not do so if my amendment is passed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Your amendment limits the discretion and power and it is inconsistent with the previous provision in the same; section giving the board permission to allow an increase in the rate of speed. I have pointed out already that if this arbitrary enactment were to be acknowledged by this committee under such circumstances there would be no limitation to the speed of the train within the limits of any corporation if a watchman were provided. That would be inadequate. The mere fact of having a watchman would not be a protection to the public, and yet it would be a protection to the railway company. If they had a watchman they could put their trains through the bounds of the corporation at any speed they chose. I think that will be acknowledged by my hon. friend.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, nq, not at all. That is- not the result, in my opinion.


Henry Robert Emmerson: According to his proposal it is made to apply whether a portion of the city, town or incorporated village is thickly peopled or not.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Suppose we insert the words ' thickly peopled.' That would do away with that objection.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think that would carry it any further according to the argument of my hon.- friend. There are many level crossings throughout Canada which do not require a watchman to protect them. Admittedly they do not require a watcnman, but yet the enactment of my hon. friend would demand that there should be a watchman there. Under his amendment there would be the privilege of un-Mr. LANCASTER.
limited speed given to the railway companies, and I think the provisions of the Railway Act, as contained in section 25, afford all the protection that the public require in the case of dangerous crossings whether within the limits of incorporated towns, or villages, or cities, or whether outside of the bounds. The Railway Commission, under subsection (a) of section 25 of the Railway Act, have power to make orders and regulations :
Limiting the rate of speed at which railway trains and locomotives may he run in any city, town or village, or in any class of cities, towns or villages described in any regulation ; and, if the board thinks fit, the rate of speed within certain described portions of any city, town or village, and allowing another rate of speed in other portions thereof.
It seems to me that this is the only sensible way to regulate these matters. You would have, by the proposed enactment, an arbitrary cast iron rule to apply to the whole country. It would be unfair to apply it to the whole country, it would be adding unnecesssary expense and especially in this country where we must recognize conditions and where we must have regard to sparsely settled communities. There are in this country incorporated villages where there are only BOO inhabitants. Will any one say that unless there is some crossing within the limits of that corporation which is dangerous there should necessarily he a watchman any more than there should be a watchman In some of the country districts which are not incorporated. But in that case if there were a dangerous crossing within the municipal limits you could apply to the Railway Commission, and you could have whatever regulation the judgment of the commission would deem it necessary to pass. The same is true in respect to ' any crossing throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion. The Railway Commission is clothed with full powers to require whatever protection they may think necessary. It does seem to me unwise that within a few months after the Railway Commission has come into being, and without our having any experience of the working of the new railway Act, we should now proceed to make amendments. It is not desirable to Interfere with tlie existing law unless cogent reasons are shown for such interference. If this amendment should pass we would take away from the Railway Commission the powers we have given it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Most decidedly you do.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Railway Commission have the right to regulate the speed, but what is the sense of section 227 as it now stands ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This amendment to the Act is objectionable for the reason that

it restricts the power and discretion of the railway board, under which they can increase, or decrease, the rate of speed as they may deem expedient. If this clause is tacked on to the section it certainly limits the power of the railway board.


Mr. BLAIN.: Has the Railway Commission power to limit the rate of speed to less than ten miles an hour ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Under the existing Act the Railway Commission has full power to order trains to run at less than ten miles an hour. It seems to me that my hon. friend has not shown good cause for his amendment. As it is now, and as I think it ought to be, each crossing must stand on its own merits and be considered individually ; from the use made of it; the population in the vicinity, and its danger generally. In legislating here we cannot know the conditions which prevail at the different crossings throughout Canada, and no cast iron rule can apply to all, bec'ause what may be desirable in one place might be very undesirable in another. We must recognize that the public interest demands that fast trains must be run If we are to keep pace with the times there must be fast express trains and we cannot have fast express trains unless under certain conditions they have the right to go at speed on rail level crossings. If in the exercise of that right there is danger to the public at any particular highway crossing then the Board of Railway Commissioners have the power to take it into consideration and provide a remedy. Accidents often do happen and we all deplore them, but very often these accidents are not due to trains running at speed. The fact that trains do run at speed is only one cause of accident, a cause we should guard against it is true, but still it is only one cause and we must not forget that these accidents are often due to other reasons.
While it is a disease for which a remedy should be applied, it is not the only disease. Therefore it seems to me that the commission can better have regard to all the causes than this parliament can have regard to only one cause, that is, the cause of speed. I mentioned incidentally that there are many crossings which are dangerous solely because of the view being obscured. It does not make much difference whether a train runs at a very great speed or at a lesser speed. There is a difference in degree, I admit, but the_danger is there just the same, and you cannot remove that danger by merely providing against extreme speed. By application to the commission, and by placing all the facts before them, you can have a remedy applied which is to the point, which is suitable to that particular crossing, and which affords protection. I think my hon. friend places too much reliance upon a watchman. I know from my own experience that in too many eases that is not a protection against loss to life and limb. I prefer rather to leave the wbrking
out of this difficulty to the Railway Commission, as provided by the Act passed last year.
I think this is too early a stage for us to attempt to pass any amendments to that Act. Its operation is the test, and if after its operation for a time, the remedy of the Railway Commission is found to be inadequate, it will be time for this parliament to provide other remedies. But at present it seems to me that no good cause has been shown why we should make this change, and remove from the commission the powers which we have given them in this regard ; because I hold that we would be removing from them, in degree at least, their powers, and would be limiting their right of action for good.


Richard Blain: Can the hon. minister state to the committee any serious accident that has taken place at any crossing where a watchman was provided ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, a great fnany. The very case cited by my hon. friend-one of the cases before the courts of Ontario- was a case in which there was loss of life, I think, although there was a watchman. The fact of a watchman being there is no absolute safeguard. I grant that it .is some measure of protection. But if the Bill became law, the mere fact that the railway company had provided a watchman would of itself be a rebuttal of any negligence on their part, and there would be no remedy against them. Moreover, it would enable the railway company, notwithstanding the provisions of section 227, to run its trains at any speed, whereas under the provisions of the section at present there is a limitation as to speed.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am sorry that the Minister of Railways has said that it is not necessary to consider the section of the Act I am proposing to amend. It is almost impossible to convince any hon. gentlemen who makes that statement that an amendment is right. I have never before heard it suggested that it was not necessary to consider the document you are proposing to amend. The hon. gentleman persists in referring to the provisions of the Act giving the Railway Commission power to regulate speed and other matters entirely outside of the section before the committee ; and I suppose it is almost hopeless to expect the section I am seeking to amend to be properly understood by the committee if there are many hon. gentlemen like the Minister of Railways who believes it is not necessary to consider that section. The hon. minister took very good care not to attempt to explain the section. He does not say, in answer to me, what the object of the section is ; but he says that no good could come of the amendment which I wish to make to that section.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I say it would make it worse.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman ought to have been able to tell us ivhat the object of the section as it stands is. That section in substance has been in the law since 1888. It provides that no train shall pass through a thickly-settled portion of any city, town or village at a speed greater than ten miles an hour-it used to be six miles. The Railway Committee of the Privy Council had power to make regulations with regard to railways crossings, and the hon. gentlemen will have the commission deal with that same matter as if this section did not exist at all. If the hon. gentleman's argument amounts to anything, it amounts to this, that because you can get a special provision from the Railway Commission, you do not need anything else. If that is the case, this section should be struck out of the statute altogether. I am inclined to believe that the Minister of Railways does not understand that section, or does not bother his head about it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Pardon me : I read the section.	.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That section contains a declaration of this parliament that no train shall pass at a speed greater than ten miles an hour. We know that other parts of the Act provide that the Railway Commission can regulate the speed at any rate they deem expedient. The hon. gentleman says that if we pass this Bill, we override tlie powers of the Railway Commission. Now, I propose to show that in that the hon. minister is entirely wrong. As the section stands unamended, it is inconsistent, while my proposed amendment clears it up. As it stands, it is simply an invitation to have lawsuits. One lawyer will say that you must take the whole section and that reading it altogether the meaning is that the speed shall not exceed ten miles an hour, but the board may say that it shall not exceed twelve or fifteen miles. Another lawyer will say that the board can regulate the speed in any fashion and that seems to be the construction put upon it by the minister, that they can regulate it to five or six miles, notwithstanding the statute says it shall not exceed ten miles. My amendment removes all ambiguities and says that in no case shall the speed exceed ten miles unless they have a watchman.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. gentleman in his amendment says :
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 he exceeded, unless the railway company keeps a watchman at such crossing to warn ail persons using the highway of approaching trains.
That might be in the suburbs of a town where there are no inhabitants. ' Wherever in a town, city, or village ' ; there might Mr. EMMERSON.
be no necessity for it in the outskirts. The section as it now stands says that no train shall pass through any thickly peopled portion at high speed, hut the proposed amendment would require a watchman at every crossing in the approaches to a city, even in districts where there might be no inhabitants, and yet the train would bo required to slow up at each of these crossings.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That was not the point I was discussing when the minister interrupted me. However, if he wishes to discuss that I will go back to it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I wish the hon. gentleman to discuss it and therefore I called his attention to it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Before six o'clock I pointed out half a dozen times ; it was necessary to do so because the minister did not seem to understand, that if he wants to insert the words ' thickly peopled ' in my amendment, I am willing to accept that. I have said that at least six times, and I hope the hon. gentleman will not again bring that up as a supposed answer to something I am discussing. I was saying that the power of the board for which he contends, is not interfered with in that section. By my section it is made clear that if they exceed ten miles an hour, they must at least have a watchman^ and if they have a watchman, they can go as fast as they like if the board permits them to do so. There is not the least excuse for the argument that this limits the power or discretion of the commission. It does carry out what the section says in the beginning. In that is contained the declaration of the policy or the intention of the legislature of this country that as a rule the speed of trains in these thickly peopled portions is not to he more than ten miles an hour, where there is no protection in cities, towns and villages. When you come on with an amendment to legislate out the decision of the Supreme Court which has made this section nugatory, you are doing something in the interest of the whole country, not only by the protection of life, but also by making the law certain and clear. To say that It is interfering with the powers of the board to provide that the rate is not to exceed ten miles an hour, is unreasonable.
How can the minister contend that my amendment is inconsistent with the intention of the section and at the same time not move in amendment to strike out the whole of section 227 is what I cannot understand, because if his argument amounts to anything this section 227 does not accomplish anything and should not be in the statute. He does not pretend to say what it does accomplish, but claims that the law is sufficient without section 227 at all. The hon. gentleman says that this is an arbitrary

enactment, and it would not be possible, if this section passed, to more closely limit the speed of any trains. If that argument was good, it must be based upon the idea that this enactment will repeal all the other sections giving power to the commission to regulate the speed of trains. As a matter of fact this section does not say a word about that, but it only provides that either the speed provided for must not be exceeded or else a watchman must be provided. I am not saying that the speed should be left at ten miles an hour, but I am only carrying into effect the law as it stands. The only object is to ask parliament to enact that this provision of the law shall mean something and be practical and effective. The hon. gentleman says there are a number of crossings that do not require watchmen. If he means that there are crossings in the thickly peopled portions of cities, towns and villages that they do not require watchmen I will not waste the time of the committee in answering him. I leave that to the judgment of members of this committee. I cannot suppose that that is just what the hon. gentleman meant. I assume that what he meant was that there are crossings which do not require watchmen, that they can be better protected in some other way than by watchmen. If so, he is assuming the very contrary of what the statute has required ever since 1888. But the hon. gentleman is careful not to say what protection is better than watchmen. He tells us that the member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) is not right, but I am going to ask the committee to assume that my suggestion is a good one when the hon. gentleman himself does not offer a better. Minister of Railways, though he be, he has no right to ask this committee to refuse to accept a proposed remedy when he himself has nothing else to propose. But, let me tell him why the watchman is the best way of providing protection.


Henry Robert Emmerson: How about gates?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If you have gates you must have some one there to watch them and to operate them.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Why not automatic gates ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I understand the minister to say that some one can be employed to operate them. The Railway Commission may order gates as well as watchmen. I shall not complain, because the public will be all the better protected. But if you have only the one means of protection, the watchman is the best. If you have gates and no one to operate them but the person who wishes to cross you have the gates raised by people who know nothing about the times -when trains may be expected. But a watchman employed by the railway may be supposed to know when trains are to be expected-it is his business to know, and
we must assume that men will do their duty. Then, a watchman is not inanimate, he is not a fixture. If he sees a person crossing he can call to him, if necessary he can follow him and make sure that his warning is heard. He can continue his warnings until he accomplishes his purpose, which is to prevent the impact of the swiftly moving train upon the human body.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) mean to say that there are no automatic gates that can be used without watchmen ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not say that; but the hon. gentleman will find that the railways would prefer to provide watchmen rather than these automatic gates, as being less expensive. This Bill will not apply to every crossing, because there are many of them in cities, towns and villages in which the railway runs either over or under the highway and in such cases they would not apply. Though the Minister of Railways has not ventured to make a suggestion himself I will complete what I was saying of the advantages of watchmen over other means of protection. The hon. minister told my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Bain) that there was a watchman at the crossings at which the McKay case arose. But, let me tell the hon. gentleman, the railway company had no watchman there. The village of Forest, knowing that this was a dangerous crossing provided a watchman for this particular day, which was fair day, and they knew that there was special danger of accident on that day. But this watchman knew- nothing about the hours of trains. And I suppose that he felt that his responsibility was not very great, because he was not employed by the railway and the railway could not discipline him even if a dozen people were killed. The jury found that the train that killed Mrs. McKay and the children was going at an excessive rate of speed, and when Mr. McKay sued he was awarded damages. The rate of speed was twenty miles an hour, and the jury thought, as parliament has thought every since 1888, that that was an excessive rate of speed for the thickly peopled portion of a city, town or village. It was 14 miles an hour faster than the statute then said it should be, which was 6 miles an hour. The jury agreed with this parliament, which called it 6 miles an hour. There was no protection there by law. They had their tracks fenced, the fences turned into the highways, but that is no protection to the traveller. The Court of Appeal of Ontario sustained that judgment, and the Supreme Court judges by a majority declared the law to be of such a nature that it is necessary for the statute to be amended in this House. The Supreme Court expected the Minister of Railways to say: In view of that state of the law we must override that decision by an amendment. The judges stated that the fencing required by the Act was

only to reach up to the highway, turning into the cattle-guards. It is all very well to say that people should be protected here, but it is no good to say that, unless some hon. gentlemen suggest a way of protection. To say that the Railway Commission in each case can make an order as they think necessary is no answer unless we are going to say that this section should not be in the statutes at all, that parliament should not make a declaration that the greatest speed should not exceed 10 miles an hour. Formerly it was 6 miles an hour, and Mr. Blau thought 6 miles an hour was a little too slow to make them run, but he did not strike out the section and left it at 10 miles. Now is this parliament going to allow a section lo be declared nugatory by the Supreme Court without amending it, or without having the courage to strike out the whole section ? I am bound to point out to the Minister of Railways that if he rejects my amendment and does not put in another to make this section practical, he is coolly insisting on a section remaining in the statute that the Supreme Court of Canada says is of no effect.
Now the Minister of Railways referred to section 25 of the Railway Act as to the power of the board. I cannot see why he made that reference. That is a general section giving power to the board to make regulations limiting the rate of speed, specifying the means of protection and so forth, stating in general terms what the powers of tlie Railway Commission should be in every matter. That section. simply gives them jurisdiction in general terms over the speed 'of trains and these other matters, but it does not have any effect to make my amendment inconsistent. But that section 2o must be read in the light of section 227 and means that, subject to 227, which fixes the rate of speed in cities, towns and villages at 10 miles an hour, the board is to have jurisdiction in all other respects. I thought the minister was going to help the House to do something practical but he has not. Now again, I ask the minister what is the object of section 227 ? Here is a parliament solemnly declaring every year in a general law that no rate of speed should be exceeded, that a certain rate which was formerly 6 miles an hour and now 10, shall not be exceeded in those places ; and yet, without repealing this section the minister would suggest that I add to it * whenever the board does not allow that rate to be exceeded.' What would the section mean then ? It would state in one place that no train shall go faster than 10 miles an hour at those places, but at the same time the board can allow it to go faster if it chooses. I submit, Mr, Chairman, that instead of the minister saying that I have made out no case, there is no excuse for him opposing this amendment. To say that we had better wait until we see what the
Railway Commission will do, does not help us at all if the law is wrong. Why should we wait to see whether the Railway Commission will be able to accomplish something that on the face of it we cannot expect them to do ? The Railway Commission is not going to regulate this rate of speed at 10 miles an hour. If you reject my amendment and refuse to say that this is the opinion of parliament, the Railway Commission at once, if they know what happens in this House to-night, will say : Parliament does not intend to force railway trains to run at so slow a rate as 10 miles an hour, even if the track is not protected. Take a case where the board would not make any order as to protection would not order a watchman or gates ; at the same time, according to the Minister of Railways, they could allow a train to run in one village at 10 miles and in another at only 6 or 8 miles an hour. Now how is that going to work ?
A man driving along gets accustomed, when he sees a train so far off, to judge how long it will take it to get to the crossing which he is approaching. To say that the rate of speed is not the'cause of these accidents is, in my opinion, not correct. It is the cause of the accident. A man sees a train approaching him at a certain distance, and expecting that the train is moving at the rate of eight or ten miles an hour he knows he can get past it before it comes to the crossing, but if it is going five times as fast as that, or if it is going at the rate of twenty-five miles an hour, he is not prepared' for such a speed, and when he attempts to cross the train strikes him, and he is either killed or injured. If so, it is the fault of this parliament and of this government. To make the law reasonable and fair to the people as well as to the railways, you should have a declaration in it-you have the declaration in it now, but it is so construed by the courts that it cannot be carreid out- that the railway companies must provide watchmen if their trains exceed a rate of ten miles an hour. If the train is going at a faster rate than ten miles an hour a man approaching the crossing is warned and protected by the watchmen. It has been said that the rate of speed does not affect the obstruction of the view, but if the view is obstructed the rate of speed makes a difference, because if the train is going at a rate of speed four or five times as fast as the man travelling along the road thought it was going he will not have time to get out of the way. I cannot understand why the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals does not adopt this amendment, and I submit that the majority of the committee, even if the hon. Minister of Railways does not support it, ought to vote for it so as to make the statute workable for the benefit of the people, because, as I have pointed out, the Supreme Court has decided that it is of no effect at all as it stands to-day.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Knowing, as he does, the ease which took place in Forest, whereby two or three people were killed, I want to ask the hon. Minister of Railways whether he would approve of having a watchman at that point or not ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not familiar with the circumstances of the case to which my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) refers. I can only say to him that the Jaw as it now stands provides a remedy, and that if gates or a watchman are required the Railway Commission has full power to deal with the matter, and it is entirely foreign to the proposition of my hon. friend here to-night The Railway Commission has jurisdiction over the matter. I have not.


Richard Blain: I think my hon. friend from Iiincohi (Mr. Lancaster) should get some consideration at the hands of the government in connection with \this important Question. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) has had brought to his attention the very serious accidents that have occurred in different parts of Canada during the last few years. I am not going to enter into a discussion of the old or new law, but 1 am of the opinion that it is the duty of the government at this session of parliament to make the law so plain that all important crossings in the different municipalities should have proper protection, whatever that protection may be. In the county I have the honour to represent there has been very general complaining in this respect for many years. At the last session of parliament this new Act was passed, but notwithstanding there are accidents taking place in different parts of Canada at railway crossings. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals seems to fear lest the Railway Commission's duties should be somewhat crippled, but, if I am correctly informed, since the Railway Commission has been appointed there have been some three hundred cases submitted for their consideration. They have only been in operation some few months, and I do not think the hon. minister need fear lest these gentlemen should run out of a job. I think that this Act should be made plain. At the last session of parliament the rate of speed at which trains were permitted to run through cities, towns and incorporated villages, where the crossings are unprotected, was increased from six to ten miles an hour. The case of McKay vs. the Grand Trunk Railway Company should be sufficient in itself to cause the government of this country to make such changes in the law as are necessary for the protection of the travelling public. This accident occurred in Forest, Ontario, where three persons were killed. An action was brought against the Grand Trunk Railway Company. It was proven in court that under the law the Grand Trunk Railway Company could not run their trains at a faster rate of speed than six miles an hour 163
ever this crossing ; yet the evidence adduced in court was that the Grand Trunk Railway Company were violating the law by running their train that day at the rate of twenty miles an hour in the village. That case was appealed from one court in Ontario to another, and the different courts in Ontario put the responsibility on the railway company and said that damages should go to the family, but when it came to the Supreme Court at Ottawa the judgment was set aside. With that condition of things existing in this country in connection with the railway law, I think it is the duty of the government to see to it at this session of parliament that the law is made so plain that where such an accident as this occurs there shall be some remedy against tbe railway company. In the town in which I live there are one or two dangerous crossings. There is a movement on foot in the different provinces of Canada to make better highways. While I am not prepared to say that at every crossing there should he a watchman or gates, I do think that on the important thoroughfares, and there are generally one or two in every town or village in Canada, the railway company should be compelled to provide watchmen and gates to protect the public. I think they should do that under the law, instead of giving discretion to the Railway Commission to say whether a watchman or gates should be provided or not. It should be taken out of the hands of the Railway Commission altogether. The law should be made plain that the railway companies should be compelled to put watchmen and gates at such crossings in order that the travelling public may have better protection. I do not think it is in the interests of the public or in the interests of the government that, in respect to any crossing where there is danger, all these regulations should be complied with which are provided for in the Act of last session, that plans should be prepared by the municipality, that profiles should be submitted, that evidence should be produced and that miles and miles of travel should be undertaken, in order to reach the Railway Commission. The Minister of Railways and the government know well that there are important crossings in this country where proper protection should be given. I believe that protection should be given and should be paid for out of the treasury of the different railway companies, and not by the people or parliament of Canada.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand from the hon. member (Mr. Lancaster) that since parliament passed the Railway Act, 1903, a decision has been given by the Supreme Court which practically nullifies what parliament intended. The decision of the Supreme Court was that if a railway company fenced its right of way up to the highway, the company was not liable no matter at what rate of speed the trains passed over the



crossing. It certainly was not the intention of parliament to have level crossings left without some reasonable measure of protection. It is true that trains run at faster speed now than formerly, but that very acceleration of speed through crowded municipalities increases the danger. That being so, the railway companies who are responsible for the cause of that increased danger should assume the cost of giving reasonable protection at these level crossings. The minister has said, and there is some force in the contention, that the law provides for the settlement of these cases by the Railway Commission ; but the minister must know that there is a limit to the financial capacity of the municipalities, and it is a most unreasonable burden to impose upon them the obligation of coming before the commission whenever they have a complaint to make. There should be some specific provision in the law requiring the companies to give the necessary protection ; but should the companies deem such protection unnecessary then the onus of establishing that should be on the railway companies. I wish I had here the statement of Mr. Wainwright as to the obligations which were imposed upon his company in protecting level crossings, when on a recent occasion before the Railway Commission he opposed the granting of another level crossing in the municipality 'of St. Henry. Surely - when parliament has permitted trains to run at an increased speed of ten miles an hour when it formerly was six, and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, it is the duty of parliament to obligate the railway companies to give the necessary protection. The Minister of Railways has given no valid reason why the Bill of the hon. member (Mr. Lancaster) should not become law. The Railway Commission will not deal with these matters unless its attention is drawn to them. It is unfair to compel the municipalities, the lives of whose citizens are in danger, to come before the Railway Commission with plans and profiles and testimony, in order to establish an obligation which primarily should rest upon the railway companies. It would be a sensible proposition to say that upon the request of a municipality it should be the duty of tbej Railway Commission to issue an order for gates and watchmen, and that the railway company should be compelled to appear before the commission to show cause why that order should not be complied with. If the i decision of the Supreme Court interprets the law contrary to what parliament intended, then it is the duty of this parliament before prorogation to make some provision in the line of the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Lincoln.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We have travelled far from the real point at issue in this case.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada had reference to the question of the negligence of the railway company. Much stress is laid upon the question of fence protection, but in most of these municipalities there is not even an attempt made to fence along the line of railway. While hon. gentlemen have been drawing attention to that, let me draw their attention to the alternative words in the statute : ' or properly protected in the manner prescribed in this Act.' Thus the Railway Act, 1903, makes provision with respect to the protection that shall be afforded.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In view of the statement made by the hon. member for Lincoln as to the decision of the Supreme Court, how can the minister say that the Act makes any other provision than to refer the matter to the Railway Commission ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The decision referred to does not in any way affect the Act in that particular. The question was one of negligence as to whether the railway company had exercised proper care and diligence under the peculiar circumstances connected with an excursion. That does not in any way condemn the Railway Act of 1903, and more than that, the proposed amendment in no way touches the question that arose in that ease. If we adopt that amendment we would afford no other protection than to say, that there should be a watchman in incorporated towns and villages, and that then the railway companies could run their trains at any speed they might choose. Under the existing law the protection required at each crossing would be decided on its merits ; the Railway Commission would hear the evidence and determine the form of protection that should be afforded. Therefore I say that the law as it stands to-day affords the most ample protection to the public. It is much more complete than any general provision which might be enacted in the form proposed by the hon. member for Lincoln. We have the best possible protection under the provisions of the Act empowering the Railway Commission to deal with each particular case as it arises.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I have listened very carefully to the argument of the hon. member for Lincoln, and it appears to me that what he is striving for is an amendment to the law to make provision that in the thickly settled parts of incorporated cities, towns and villages, trains shall not pass at a greater speed than ten miles an hour unless a watchman is provided. Surely it will not be argued that it would not be a substantial relief to the municipalities to have that amendment made ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The law now is that ' no train shall pass in or through any thickly-settled portion of any city, town or

village at a speed greater tlian ten miles an hour, unless the track is fenced or properly protected in the manner prescribed by this Act.' In cities, towns and incorporated villages there are no fences. Other sections of the Act-186, 187, 224 and 25-all contain provisions for protection.


James Clancy: I am not quite clear what the hon. gentleman's objection to the Bill is. other than that he is determined that there shall be no amendment. According to my short parliamentary experience, we usually first lay down the policy of the law. We have created a railway commission, and have laid down some general principles to govern that commission. It amounts to this, that the hon. Minister of Railways prefers the Railway Commission to legislate on this matter, whereas my hon. friend from Lincoln proposes that this House shall declare, by an Act of parliament, what its will is. I ask the hon. gentleman if that is not the substantial difference between himself and the hon. member for Lincoln.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I simply say that what is ample protection at one crossing Is very inadequate protection at another. Parliament at its last session delegated certain powers to the Railway Commission, very wisely I think, because that Commission can better judge, from the circumstances and the evidence in each particular case, as to the character of the protection to be afforded.


Richard Blain: Did I understand the hon. minister to say that the provision in section 227 of the Act of 1903, with regard to fencing, in towns and villages, is not complied with ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I mean to say it does not apply in a general way, because not only do incorporated cities, towns and villages not fence, but they are very much opposed to any such thing.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend is entirelv mistaken, so far as the province of Ontario is concerned.


Henry Robert Emmerson: How about Toronto, Hamilton and Brantford 1


Richard Blain: I was directing my remarks more particularly to towns and villages. I think I am safe in saying that in every town and village in the province of Ontario the provisions of section 227 with regard to fencing are complied with.
Section negatived :	Yeas 24, nays, 34.
Progress reported.



PROHIBITION OF CIGARETTES.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 128), to prohibit the importation, manufacture and sale of cigarettes.-Mr. W. S. MacLaren. I 163 i
Edward Frederick Clarke: Might I ask the hon. gentleman who has charge of the Bill to explain the features in which this Bill differs from that introduced 12 months ago. I understood that the legislation of last year was to prohibit the sale of cigarettes to minors, but a great many members of the House who sympathize with the prohibition of the sale to minors do not sympathize with this Bill.


Mr. IV. S. MACLAREN.: There is practically no change between the Bill introduced last session and the present Bill. The defect in the Bill of last year upon which the Speaker rejected it, was that it should have originated in the Committee of the Whole House. The Bill, however, was the same as this, prohibiting the manufacture and sale of cigarettes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I was not aware that it was the same.


William Scott Maclaren: Yes, that is correct. .


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Word for word the
same ?


William Scott Maclaren: That is my
impression.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I had the honour of introducing a deputation of men engaged in the tobacco trade to the Minister of Justice last year. They laid their case before him respecting this or a similar Bill, if I remember correctly. These traders expressed their willingness that a law should be enacted prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to minors ; they do not keep their establishments open for the encouragement of the sale of cigarettes to minors, but they felt that the Bill of last year would be a great injustice to them. The Bill of last year did not give satisfaction to either party, and both were invited by the Minister of Justice to make representations to him, it being thought that by the time the succeeding session of parliament was called it might be possible to prepare a measure that would give reasonable satisfaction to both parties.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The Bill to which my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) alludes, was a proposed amendment to the Criminal Code, but unfortunately this present Bill has been introduced on a resolution adopted by a large majority in Committee of the Whole House.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Was not the deputation last year in reference to a proposal to prohibit the sale to minors ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes ; under 18, I think it was.


William Scott Maclaren: After the Bill was rejected by the Speaker, on account of an informality, the Minister of Justice proposed an amendment to the Criminal Code making it an offence under the code to sell

cigarettes to persons under a certain age. and I think afterwards the minister said that this was not acceptable to those behind this Bill standing in my name, nor were the manufacturers of cigarettes pleased with it. Is that correct ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is correct.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The evil caused by the use of cigarettes by minors is recognized throughout the country, and it is beyond doubt that there is a very general desire, both in parliament and out of parliament, to prevent the sale of cigarettes to growing boys. The present measure goes very far ; it prohibits the importation, manufacture or use of cigarettes by any one. I have been a smoker for quite a number of years and I would not feel it a great hardship to be deprived of cigarettes, but at the same time, I recognize the fact that there are very many others, good citizens, who indulge in the use of cigarettes, and, as they think, without any very great injury to themselves. With the permission of the committee, I would suggest a remedy to my hon. friend. I received a letter from a very good friend who is anxious to check the evil in question. This letter, I think, embodies a principle which would most effectually prevent the evil. My correspondant says :
If the smoke debate is not ended before this reaches you, would it do to suggest that a law be enacted whereby no cigarettes can he imported, manufactured or sold in the country as now, put up and sold in packages rolled and otherwise, but in lieu thereof, that cigarette tobacco in bulk may be imported and manufactured and that pure paper for rolling the same in may also be imported, manufactured and sold in the country. That is to say, the boy would have to buy the tobacco and the paper and roll his cigarette before he could smoke it.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: He would soon get on to that.
It would be of considerably more trouble to him than now.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: He would soon get on to that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: And the revenue officers could inspect the tobacco so sold and the paper to see that it was free from all impurities. This idea has two points to lessen the evil of cigarette smoking, and would be a law that could be effectually carried out. The dealer would not be in a hurry to wait upon a dirty-faced urchin and sell him two cents worth of tobacco and strip off the necessary paper, and tie it up with a string and give it to the boy. And perhaps the boy would spoil the paper and spill the tobacco in his attempts to roll it. The boy would get tired and so would the dealer. As it is now, the dealer can easily hand over a package or two of cigarettes for five cents. You make a law that would make them both tired and they will soon quit it.


William Scott Maclaren: That contains the kernel of a remedy that mignt well he applied. But, seriously speaking, while I recognize the evil, I do think that the Bill which is now being promoted by my hon. friend goes a very great length, and I, for one, would not feel like supporting it. I was not present at the time the resolution was before the committee. It is true that last session I favoured the resolution. But I did so under a misapprehension as to what it was proposed should follow that resolution.


Mr. COCHRANE.: You have had a change of heart.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am always willing to admit a mistake, and I am true to my convictions so far as I can be. I would not give a silent vote on this subject. My reasons for voting against this Bill are that it has too wide a sweep and that the law, even if passed would, in niy opinion, be entirely inoperative, because you cannot prevent the smoking of cigarettes by adults, nor would there be any general desire for such legislation.


Aaron Abel Wright: We will try it any way.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I presume that it will be tried if the majority favour it. But I do not think it will be successfully tried, and I do not believe in playing at legislation. 1 do not believe that mere sentiment should rule. There are a good many people, very good people, who are in favour of this Bill. They are actuated by the highest motives, and we ought to respect them. But I think that they are mistaken as to what the law would accomplish. And, because I think the law would be inoperative, the passing of it would be simply beating the air, it would be simply an attempt to play upon sentiment. Therefore, I oppose the measure and wish to put myself on record as opposing it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The resolution introduced last year was moved by the hon. member for St. Lawrence, Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) and seconded by the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes). I would draw the attention of the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Maclaren) to the debate of last year. So far as I can gather from a hasty perusal of the report, the object these hon. gentlemen desired to achieve was to restrict the sale of cigarettes in the case of minors.


Charles Fitzpatrick: To control it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Yes, to control it. This Bill is more sweeping than the Bill of last year. It surely cannot be seriously contended by hon. members who support this Bill that they can pass legislation that will be effective in prohibiting the importation and sale of cigarette paper to adults who wish to roll their own cigarettes. I sup-

ported the Bill last year to restrict the sale of cigarettes In the case of minors and would be glad to support it this year. But the Bill now before us Is altogether too sweeping, as I think lion, gentlemen who support it should see for themselves. Are they going to keep out cigarette tobacco and determine what may or may not be so classed 1


Charles Fitzpatrick: And what will become of what is already in the country ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Apart from that, it must surely be plain that adults who smoke cigarettes would procure the tobacco and the paper if necessary, and make their own cigarettes. There should be good reasons given before we are called upon to vote in favour of such a Bill.


Mr. HOLMES.: I think the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) is correct, so far as the legislation of last year is concerned, and the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Maclaren) is wrong. I believe that the law introduced last year was to restrict the sale of cigarettes to minors and it was along that line that we worked. I will admit that this Bill goes further than that of last year. And, while I am prepared to support this Bill I must admit also that I agree with the members who are opposed tp it that it is impracticable to prohibit the manufacture, importation and sale of cigarettes so far as adults are concerned. But the object is to get legislation that will restrict the sale of cigarettes. I may say for the information of the House that I have been informed that in the city of St. Hyacinthe they procured provincial legislation similar in character to that which we have been trying to procure from 'this parliament. That legislation prohibits the sale of cigarettes to minors under certain restrictions. And I am told that the law is effective so far as St. Hyacinthe is concerned, and has practically stopped cigarette smoking there. I admit that this Bill goes further than originally intended, but I suppose it is introduced to meet the wishes of those who are agitating for legislation on this subject. My hope was that the ladies of the Women's Christian Temperance Union would have accepted the amendment to the Criminal Code suggested by the Minister of Justice last session. But, failing that, we are trying to secure legislation that will work out the results desired.


William Scott Maclaren: It is not my desire to deceive anybody as to the legislation last year I was quite sincere in what I said about it, and notwithstanding what has been said, I still think I am right. Of course, I am open to conviction. When the resolution was passed last year, and the Bill based on it was rejected, the Minister of .Justice offered to introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code making it an offence to sell cigarettes to minors under a certain age. But, what troubles me is why that should have been offered as a compromise if it was exactly what was provided by the Bill of the hon. member for St. Lawrence, Montreal (Mr. Biekerdike). And we are told that this proposal of an amendment to the Criminal Code was rejected by the members of the Women's Christian Temperance Union and the tobacco manufacturers. Unless I am given chapter and verse to prove the contrary, I stick to the opinion I started out with as to the effect of the resolution of last year.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The objection made by the dealers or retailers' of cigarettes was that the person who purchased the cigarettes was not reached by the amendment. They were willing to accept the amendment if the person who, with themselves, violated the law, were required to share the punishment.


William Scott Maclaren: But, if the hon. member for^ West Toronto ((Mr. Clarke) will allow me, what we were discussing was the nature of the Bill of last year. A good deal of emphasis was laid upon the point, by the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. liolmes) and others, that the Bill sought to be introduced last year was not a Bill for the prohibition of the manufacture, importation and sale of cigarettes, but was a restrictive measure with regard to the sale of cigarettes to minors. I am sti'l of the opinion that the legislation sought last year was identical with the Bill introduced this year.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am bound to say that I agree with the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. W. S. Maclaren). I do not think there is a doubt that the Bill of last year prohibited the manufacture, importation and sale of cigarettes. What I think has caused the confusion, that it was proposed in another measure to amend the Criminal Code so as to deal only with minors; but the Bill of the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Maclaren), for which I voted and am prepared to vote again this session, was one absolutely to prohibit the sale, importation and manufacture of cigarettes ; and it was on the other matter that the discussion arose mentioned by my hon. friend for Toronto (Mr. Clarke). The matter of dealing with the Criminal Code came in as a sort of result of the measure introduced by the member for Huntingdon. The measure of the hon. member for Huntingdon was exactly of the same nature as is before us now.


Mr. RICHARDSON.: As seconder of the resolution introduced last year, I desire to say that I understand the present Bill is of the same character as that introduced last year. The aim and intent of the Bill was

to preserve the youth of the country from the harmful habit of using cigarettes. We had a law in Ontario to prohibit the sale of tobacco to minors, but it was practically useless, as it was not observed in any part of the province ; therefore the Bill introduced last year, like the Bill introduced this year, was of a more drastic character and had for its purpose the prohibition of the the importation, manufacture and sale of cigarettes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would like to read a few extracts from the speeches made by the mover and seconder of the resolution which preceded the Bill that was introduced last year. These were the resolutions :
That the object of good government is to promote the general welfare of the people by a careful encouragement and protection of whatever makes for the public good ; and by equally careful discouragement and suppression of whatever tends to the public disadvantage.
That the smoking of cigarettes has been proved by overwhelming testimony to be productive of serious physical and moral injury to young people, impairing health, arresting development, weakening intellectual power, and thus constituting a social and national evil.
The legislation licensing and restricting the sale of cigarettes has not proven sufficient to prevent these evils, which will continue while the public sale of the cause of the mischief is permitted to go on.
That this House is of the opinion, for the reasons hereinbefore set forth, that the right and most effectual legislative remedy for these evils is to be found in the enactment and enforcement of a law prohibiting the importation, manufacture and sale of cigarettes.
Now let me read some of the observations made by the gentlemen who moved and seconded the resolution,


William Scott Maclaren: Were the gentlemen who voted last year voting on the resolution or on the speeches made ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: They were voting for the purpose of restricting and regulating the sale of cigarettes to minors. If the hon. gentleman will allow me to read some of the statements made by the mover and seconder, I will try to establish what I said. The hon. gentleman who moved the resolution said this among other things :
I shall only lay before the House a few of the many facts that have come into my possession to show the baneful effect of cigarette smoking upon the boys of this country. I believe tr.rc if the injury that is being done were known, there would be a unanimous vote of this House in favour of this resolution or of some similar measure. I hope I shall have the majority of this House at my back, for there are very few- men who are fathers of boys but have had more or less cause to know the bad effects of this cigarette habit upon boys.
' Mr. RICHARDSON.	,
There is no young man or boy but wishes to succeed in life. All want to get along ; all want to better their position ; success in life, in these days of strong competition, means honesty, temperance and economy. A boy or young man who has these, with good health, must succeed ; while, if he lacks them, even moderate success will be impossible. I think, Sir, we are all agreed that the boy who is addicted to the cigarette habit cannot succeed in this country unless he has a [DOT] very strong * pull ' somewhere, while the boy who is not addicted to that habit does not require any ' pull '-all he wants is the push, and he succeeds in getting to the front. I have with me certificates from the most eminent physicians throughout the country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and all these documents go to prove that the cigarette habit, with the boys at least, is very, very injurious. I think there is no hon. member of this House who will say nay to that proposition. I would be the last man on the floor to attempt to interfere in any way with the rights of the subject. Once a boy has come to the age of maturity, he has a right to do as he pleases. All I wish to do is to introduce some measure that will protect the boys from this very bad habit of recent years-for, Mr. Speaker, it is only of recent years that it has taken such a hold on the country.
Then the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) who seconded the motion, spoke on the same line. He said :
The mover of the resolution stated clearly at the outset that the intention is to reach the young, so far as it is possible, to reach those who are of immature years, those who have not attained their full physical development, those upon whom the evil effects of cigarette smoking are perhaps more apparent than they are on people of more mature years. I contend that the use of- cigarettes by children is injurious. We have not only to quote the opinions, as I will give them later on, of a number of medical authorities thereon, but I have taken the trouble to ask medical men myself since I have been in Ottawa and elsewhere as to the effect of cigarettes on children, and they assure me that their use is very detrimental indeed, detrimental both from the moral and physical standpoints, that it destroys the intellect and prevents the development of their physical nature.
I need not quote any more from these speeches because they are filled with similar arguments. The object hon. gentlemen were aiming at is one with which we all must sympathize, that is, to prevent the sale of cigarettes to the children. Those who are in the trade were willing to have an amendment made to the code provided that it punished those who bought cigarettes as well as those who sold them.


Mr. L. P. DEMERS.: 
William Scott Maclaren: I am very pleased to find my hon. friend (Mr. Demers) and the ' Gazette ' agreeing in something. The ' Gazette ' is mistaken in the statement that there is no interest in this Bill taken outside of a very few. The ' Gazette ' would not be as apt to know regarding such a matter as I would be myself. It is not my intention to discuss the matter at any greater length. The resolution proposed last year was adopted and carried two to one in this House. The Bill was introducel by myself, went through its second reading and was carried by a majority of 128 to 52. I am content to leave the matter before the House. I am prepared for a vote at any time.


Robert Holmes: I would like just to set myself right. My hon. friend from Huntingdon (Mr. Maclaren) was right in so far as the nature of the Bill was concerned. It was a general Bill restricting the importation of cigarettes but the whole trend of the discussion was along the lines indicated by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke).


Mr. MONK.: I would like to say to my hon. friend from Huntingdon (Mr. Maclaren) that I think he is right about the measure introduced last session.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have a copy of the Bill here.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I see that the resolution, after relating to the extent of the evil, contains this paragraph:
That this House is of the opinion, for the reasons hereinbefore set forth, that the right and most effectual legislative' remedy for th^se evils is to be found in the enactment and enforcement of a law prohibiting the importation, manufacture, and sale of cigarettes.
It was very general. The House was not disposed to vote for such a sweeping measure and I think it is a pity that those interested did not accept the proposition made by the hon. Minister of Justice that the government was ready to amend the criminal code in such a way as to prohibit the sale of cigarettes to minors under the age of eighteen. I voted for this resolution introduced last year by the hon. member for Montreal, St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) and so did the hon. Minister of Justice. But, I was convinced after the discussion that we should limit the scope of this legislation. I think it is a great pity that the suggestion was not adopted particularly in view of the very lengthy discussion that took place last year. I am ready to vote for any measure which will prohibit the sale of cigarettes to minors, and I think an amendment to the Criminal Code would certainly to a very large extent attain the object which we all have in view. The measure is evidently Mr. DEMERS.
too sweeping to have the approval of the House and under these circumstances I think it is a pity that the hon. member for; Huntingdon has introduced it. I for one afW not disposed to encourage it though I quite agree with and approve of the subject he has in view.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I do not claim to have a memory that will recall everything that takes place in this House ; in fact, I am very thankful I have not because there are many things said here perhaps that ifr is as well to forget. I have, however, a very distinct recollection in regard to the measure introduced last year by the hon. member for Montreal. St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike). It was, I believe, in the nature of a resolution which squarely set forth the fact that the object was to prohibit absolutely the importation, sale and manufacture of cigarettes. Now, that may be a very drastic measure. We have nothing to do now with the Bill introduced last year. We are dealing with the measure that has been brought before the House this year by the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Maclaren) and whatever the measure last year contained it will not have any special bearing upon' the vote that we will be called upon to give to-night, as to whether we are prepared now to pass a Bill absolutely prohibiting the sale, manufacture and importation of cigarettes. It may seem a very drastic measui'e, but if I can gather anything at all from the sentiment of the country as shown by the many petitions presented to this House and also * by the vote that has already been given by this House on the Bill which is now before us, on the occasion of the second reading, the sentiment of the whole country is that those who have arrived at a mature age are called upon to give up something that they might desire to practice in order to save the young generation from a habit which everybody admits is pernicious and injurious. That! seems to be the meaning of the vote that was given a short time ago and that seems to be the sentiment of the country. I have no hesitation in saying, viewing it from that light, that I am prepared to support the clause of the Bill which is now before the committee and shall vote for it as well as the subsequent clauses if they are submitted to the committee.


Aaron Abel Wright: Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned. I am not caring very much whether this Bill is identical with the Bill introduced last year or not. I am under the impression that it is the identical Bill. But. we have not to do with what was introduced last session. What we have to do with now is what is before us to-night and as far as I am concerned I am anxious that the Bill now before the committee shall become law. Every one in my constituency

with whom I have spoken is exceedingly anxious that this kind of legislation shall be passed. I am firmly of the opinion that this is the kind of legislation that the women of the Women's Christian Temperance Union are anxious to see passed; through this House. One hon. gentleman tried to make it appear that the fact of this Bill being before the House was merely a joke. I can assure that hon. gentleman that if he had a son. if he had a young boy whose health was undermined, whose mind was being destroyed and whose physicians had told him that the continuous smoking of cigarettes was the cause, I do not think, if he were the father of a son1 of that kind, he would think this very much of a joke. On the contrary, he would think it something that this country should take, seriously into consideration. In my own town the habit of cigarette smoking prevails to a tremendous extent. I do not know that there is. a town in the country where the habit of cigarette smoking has made such tremendous strides within such a short space of time. In supporting this Bill I have the sympathy of the teachers, the preachers, and the leading people of my constituency who are anxious that this Bill should become law and therefore I shall be pleased to support it.


Mr. PARMELEE.: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say one or two words upon this subject before the vote is taken. I regret very much that my hon. friend from Huntingdon has introduced a Bill which goes, in my opinion, altogether too far. It does not seem to me that there is any more reason for totally prohibiting the importation, manufacture and sale of cigarettes than there would toe for applying the same prohibition to the manufacture and use in all forms of tobacco. I presume that everybody practically admits that the use of cigarettes by growing boys is calculated to affect their nervous system and in some cases, if carried to excess, to undermine their constitution and ruin their health. Last year when this question was before the House, I was very much impressed by the dispassionate statement by the hon. member for Montreal, St. Antoine (Mr. Roddick), who pointed out very clearly from medical testimony of the highest character that the use of cigarettes by young people was injurious. But. on the other hand he stated with equal emphasis that as far as the medical profession was concerned they did not consider the use of cigarettes or tobacco in any form in moderation to be injurious to the average man. For my part, I do not believe in the efficacy or in the utility of trying to make men good by Act of parliament. I believe that if hoys are going to be trained in the way they should go you should not propose to come here and do it but that you should go''into your own home to do it and if occasion needs, spank the boy instead of endeavouring to put upon the statute-book legislation which would be carried out more in the breach than in the observance. It does not inure to the dignity of this parliament or to the respect which the people ought to have for the law to enact legislation of that kind, and I think my hon. friend would have done far more good if he had limited himself to an effort to place on the statute-book an Act restricting the sale of cigarettes to young people. For my part I cannot perhaps set my face against all the testimony but I go about the country a good deal, I keep my eyes open and I fail to see such an enormous consumption of cigarettes as some hon. members in this House pretend to see and as some of the people who have petitioned us claim to exist. I have nothing but kind words to say of the good women who have taken it upon themselves to push this movement. I believe they have a perfect right to do it but I believe that their fears have been excited, that they perhaps have gone too far and that they exaggerate the extent of the evil, because in the rural parts of the province of Quebec the sale of cigarettes is almost unknown. I hardly think my hon. friend from Huntingdon is an authority on this question, for I believe he is a non-smoker himself, but I can tell him that you can go into any store in the Amer-scan cities and buy ten little cigars for a dime, and they are not such bad cigars either.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What are they made of ?


Charles Henry Parmelee: They are not too bad : I have smoked them myself. One of the arguments used as to why we should prohibit cigarettes is because they are so cheap that the small boy with five or ten cents in his pocket can go into a tobacco or drug store and buy a package, but suppose this law should be passed, and even suppose it should be enforced, then it is reasonable to assume that the ten cigars for a nickel will take the place of ten cigarettes for a dime. For my part, I would be strongly in favour of something like the amendment to the Criminal Code introduced by the Minister of Justice last year. I think that goes far enough, although I am afraid that there might be some difficulty in enforcing even such a provision. I understand that /anti-cigarette legislation has been passed in a number of the states of the union, but I have never seen any proof advanced here or elsewhere that it has achieved the results hoped for by those who exerted themselves to have it placed upon the statute-book. I regret that any boy should use cigarettes even moderately ; indeed tobacco in any form should be used by young men only in great moderation, because in these days of keen competition it requires all the energy and all the nerve force our young men possess to enable them

to win in the battle of life. Unlike a good many of my fellow-members, I have not to go back upon the vote which I gave last year. I believe that a targe number of hon. gentlemen voted last year for this resolution believing it to be a joke, or at all events believing that it would never reach a serious stage in the deliberations of this parliament, and now they have to reconsider their votes.


William Scott Maclaren: I do not look upon this as a joke, nor have I from the start. I took no part in the debate last year, and I do not see why the women of the Women's Christian Temperance Union asked me to take charge of the Bill this year ; but they did, and I at once consented. I did not know much about the matter at the time, but I have given it some thought since, and I can say that I am more in earnest about it now than I was at the start. I am thankful to the members who to-night have spoken so kindly in regard to these ladies who have charge of this matter, though I must say that in a former debate they were not so gently dealt with. There are 404 branches of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, having about 12,000 members. East year some hon. gentlemen who spoke about these ladies suggested that they should start cook ing schools. I want to know who it is that carry on the cooking schools throughout Canada at the present time. If the hon. gentleman from Toronto (Mr. Osier), who referred to the cooking schools last year, would look around him he would find that the ladies who were carrying on the cooking schools in the Slums of Toronto are the ladies of the Women's Christian Temperance Union and the Young Women's Christian. Association.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And in the absence of my hon. friend (Mr. Osier), I may say that there is no more generous supporter of that movement in Canada than he is.


James Clancy: And probably the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclaren) might administer a rebuke to the Prime Minister, who repeated the same language.


William Scott Maclaren: I do not suppose the remark was intended to be offensive in either case. At all events, I know that these women who are advocating this Bill are acting in the best interest of the young people of Canada. I believe that there is a law in everyr province except Quebec prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to youths, but I do not think it has been found to be effective, and that being so, it was thought that it was necessary to have what is called the more drastic legislation incorporated in this Bill.


William Ross: The argument is very stale, that you cannot make people better by Act of parliament. If that argument were carried into effect, then the greater part of our Criminal Code would not be in existence. We know that there is a genera-Mr. PARMELEE.
tion of young people growing up at the present time, feeble in intellect, feeble in constitution, feeble in growth, and this altogether owing to the use and abuse of cigarettes. Those who oppose this legislation are people who use tobacco, and who probably use it to no good purpose. The best minds in this Dominion owe the member for Huntingdon a debt of gratitude for introducing this Bill, and he is supported by the best Christian people in the Dominion. Whether this Bill becomes law or -not, its introduction affords proof that there is a party in this parliament who are anxious that this evil should be removed. I have great pleasure in supporting this Bill, and I would be delighted to see it become law. I can tell the House that if it does not become law this session the force of public opinion will cause it to be placed on the statute-book before long, and hon. gentlemen will find that their vote to-night will become a live question when they next appeal to the people.


Mr. KAULBACH.: I believe in the principle of this Bill, but at the same time I am inclined to think that it is too broad in its scope, inasmuch as it would prohibit adults who are accustomed to the use of tobacco from smoking it in this form. I believe that every effort should be made to prevent our youths, those under the age of eighteen let us say, from using cigarettes. Should they not smoke until they attain that age, it is no more than likely that they may refrain from cigarette smoking ever afterwards. Even if this Bill should become law. there are various methods by which its provisions could be evaded. If the Bill went so far as to prohibit the use of tobacco in any form by young men under the age of eighteen years, or even under twenty-one years, I think it would be more beneficial. I read the other day the statement by a magistrate whose duty it was to try juvenile offenders -for various forms of crime, and he claimed that out of 500 whom he tried 90 per cent of those convicted had been addicted to the use of cigarettes. In view of such strong evidence it behooves us to use every effort to prevent boys under the age of eighteen from using tobacco in any form. It is my opinion that a great deal can be done by clergymen and by those public spirited women, who have taken a great interest in this matter, and who are deserving of a great deal of credit for their efforts towards the protection of our young men. If they were to form an anti-smoking society amongst young men, and if the employers of labour joined with them in making a rule that they should not engage young men who used cigarettes or tobacco in any form, a great deal of practical good would be accomplished. I merely make this suggestion in the hope that the women, if they have not thought of if in the past, may consider it seriously, and adopt a method of that kind.

Section agreed to : Yeas, 50 ; nays, 27.
On section 2,
2. No cigarettes, cigarette papers or wrappers shall be imported into Canada or entered for consumption therein, and all cigarettes, cigarette papers or wrappers, or papers intended as such, shall be subject to seizure by any officer of customs or inland revenue ; and they, with the packages in which they are contained, shall be subject to be seized and forfeited to His Majesty, and shall be disposed of under regulations made by the Governor in Council.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I understand that the people of this country are to be told;, by formal Act of parliament, that children of any age may use tobacco in aiiy form except in the form of cigarettes. That, I understand, is the effect of the legislation which we are now passing. I cannot concur in that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the important objection to this provision is the impossibility of carrying it out.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We will create a race of hyprocrites.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The question is what are cigarette papers or cigarette wrappers. A great deal of the paper used for cigarette wrappers is merely paraffine paper which is used for putting up powders, and can be got in any drug store in the country. Ordinary cigarette paper is rice paper ; but where rice paper is used once, I venture to say that paraffine paper is used a dozen times, and it can be got at any drug store and can be put up by any one. So that it seems to me that it is impracticable to enforce this Act, because it is impossible to detine what is cigarette paper. Half a dozen kinds can be used for the purpose.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If parliament is to protect the children of this country against the evil of smoking cigarettes, we should have an amendment made to the Criminal Code such as was attempted by the Minister of Justice last year. He failed in that attempt because neither party was satisfied. If the gentlemen who support this Rill would unite in asking the Minister of Justice to frame an amendment to the Criminal Code so as to punish not only those who sell cigarettes but those who purchase them for the use of minors, that would be a practical measure which I think would be effective. To prohibit the importation of cigarette paper and to allow the cigarette tobacco to be imported and sold seems to me to be a fatal defect in this Bill. We all agree that boys ought to be prohibited in some way7 from smoking cigarettes, and I think such an amendment to the Criminal Code would go far to put an pnd to this great evil. You must punish both the purchaser and the vendor if you want an effective measure. I would suggest that the
gentlemen promoting the Bill will unite in asking the Minister of Justice to frame an amendment to the code which will carry out the object which these very estimable ladies have in view.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I agree with the hon. member's suggestion that an amendment should be made in the Criminal Code to prohibit the sale of both cigarettes and cigarette tobacco to minors.


Mr.  W. S. M.VCLAREN@: I have only to say that I am not the maker of the Bill. It was framed at the request of those promoting it, by a firm of solicitors in this * city. After it was placed in my hands, I submitted it for my own satisfaction to [DOT] another firm of solicitors in whom I had confidence, and they endorsed it. If the feeling of the House is that it should be amended in any way, we will argue the amendment ; but so far as the Bill is concerned, it is my intention to push it through to the end ; and after it is made law or defeated, if the Minister of Justice can then frame an amendment to the Criminal Code to suit both those promoting this Bill and those opposed to it, I will have no objection.
Mi-. FITZPATRICK. I should then be asked to make something criminal which it would be impossible for any one to do if this legislation passes. It seems to me tlpit we should be informed what is the object which those promoting this legislation have in view.


William Scott Maclaren: 1 understand that in every province except the province of Quebec, restrictive legislation was passed. It was found that that was not effective in reducing the use of cigarettes. I am not a lawyer, unfortunately ; I suppose that if I was I might be able to argue these. law points with lawyers, learned in the law, but I am advised that this provincial legislation was not effective and that in fact some questions as to the constitutionality of the provincial Act arose after that judgment given on the Lord's Day Act. When those in favour of such legislation found this provincial legislation practically a dead letter and not enforced-, they thought they would take a stronger measure and secure the prohibition of the manufacture, importation and sale.


Mr FITZPATRICK.: Then I understand the object is to prohibit the importation, manufacture and sale of cigarettes ?


William Scott Maclaren: Yes.


Charles Fitzpatrick: How far are you going in that direction by this legislation, Mr. Chairman ? The tobacco can be introduced into the country and you are prohibiting the importation of cigarette paper or cigarette wrappers. Now

what is cigarette paper or a cigarette wrapper ? Is there anything in this Bill to define them ? How are you going to reach the people who introduce the paper into this country from which cigarettes may be manufactured ? You should supxily a definition of these words so as to be able to proceed against any person who imports it. After all we are not here simply to enact legislation for the mere purpose of putting it on the statute-books. Let us see what we accomplish by what we do. I want to see how far by the aid of this Bill the object in view would be accomplished.
. It cannot be accomplished by the Bill in its present form and if it cannot be accomplished by the Bill in its present form why should we waste our time on it ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The Minister of Justice has said that the aim, no matter what the wording of the Bill of last year might be, was to provide legislation to protect the children of this country from the injurious effects of cigarette smoking. Let me quote again one or two sentences in support of what the Minister of Justice has said to show that. The mover of the Bill (Mr. Bickerdike) last year said :
Once a boy has come to the age of maturity, he has a right to do as he pleases. All I wish to do is to introduce some measure that will protect the boys from this very bad habit of recent years.
That is the statement of the hon. gentleman who proposed the resolution last year. The hon. gentleman who seconded it was equally to the mark and equally clear. He said :
We are not arguing from the standpoint of those of mature years, but from the standpoint of the bearing of this question on the youth of Canada.
There is a consensus of opinion, it cannot be questioned, that the excessive use of cigarettes is disastrous, physically, morally and mentally to children, and every one will sympathize with legislation, that will mitigate that evil. I believe that can best be done by an amendment to the Criminal Code as suggested last year by the Minister of Justice. But the Minister of Justice pointed out afterwards that this legislation had not met with the approval either of those who desired to restrict the sale, or of those who were engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes. It was pointed out by dealers that while they could be punished for selling to minors, those who came in to induce them to break the law escaped scot free.


Edward Cochrane: That is no argument.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is a practical argument. It has been' found in connection with the Ontario law that there are adults who are mean enough to purchase cigarettes for children and give them to children. It has been done again and again. It would not Mr. FITZPATRICK.
be fair under those circumstances to hold the dealer alone responsible. If the person who aids the child in purchasing the cigarettes was made amenable to law there would be_ a strong forward movement in the direction we desire, but this legislation will not accomplish its object, and that is the reason T oppose it. If we pass this legislation the tobacco will be rolled into cigarettes by some one, and the children will continue to use them.


William Scott Maclaren: I am not an expert on tobacco and I would like to ask if there is any difference between cigarette tobacco and ordinary cut tabacco ?
Mr. AaRKE, It is much finer, as the hon. gentleman knows.


William Scott Maclaren: A gentleman behind me says no.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I speak of course subject to correction ; I am uot a cigarette smoker ; but I am satisfied that tobacco is specially made for cigarette use.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Whether it is or not yTou can use it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It does not affect what I said, because if any kind of tobacco can be rolled into cigarettes, we are not accomplishing anything.


Charles Fitzpatrick: As I understand the injurious effect of cigarettes results from the paper used in their manufacture, not from the use of tobacco. We admit that tobacco is not noxious in itself. It is allowed in every form but we are here saying that cigarettes are not to be used because of the paper used in connection with their manufacture. What are we doing ? That paper which is supposed to be deleterious when used for the purpose of manufacturing cigarettes, is not to be imported, but any other deleterious paper, even if it is absolutely noxious may be imported and may be used. What do we mean ? W'hat are we trying to get at ? It seems to me we are not serious iu this matter.


William Scott Maclaren: Oh, yes.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We are serious ? Then, we are incapable because we are not accomplishing the object we have in view.


Mr. MACKINNON.: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. When the question of the liquor Bills came up before parliament and was referred to the Privy Council the question of jurisdiction was at issue. I would like to ask the minister whether the Dominion parliament can prohibit the sale of cigarettes. I understand the provincial parliaments have passed the prohibition laws, and I would like him to explain whether the prohibition of the sale of cigarettes comes within the jurisdiction of the provincial parliament or of the Dominion parliament.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not think there is any question about that. I think there is no doubt about our power to pass this legislation.


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: Might I ask the member who has the Bill in charge (Mr. Maclaren) whether he has any information to the effect that any serious effoi't has ever been made to enforce the laws on this subject now in existence in Nova Scotia, and if so what is the nature of that information ?


William Scott Maclaren: I have no information as regards Nova Scotia. I have as regards Ontario. They have tried to enforce it there but since this judgment on the Lord's Dav Act there has been a good deal of feeling 'in regard to the question whether the legislation passed there was constitutional. There have been prosecutions in connection with the local Act but I cannot say how far they have gone or what, success there has been.


Alexander Johnston: It seems to me that it has been made abundantly clear that for the present time this is not an effective measure, and will fail to bring about the results desired by those supporting it. For my own part I have no very strong convictions with regard to the manufacture, sale, and use of cigarettes ; am not a user of tobacco. But if I read this statute correctly I am satisfied that the passing of this Act is not going to prevent the boy of this country smoking cigarettes, and it is for this reason I think that this measure should not become law. If we are serious about this matter let us introduce legislation that will be effective. Those who are earnestly desirous of accomplishing reforms -I am myself desirous that they should be brought about-should introduce only measures that would be effective, not half effective in bringing about tlie results desired.


William Ross: Might it not be better for the Minister of Justice to give us the aid of his judicial mind in making this Bill perfect and not be raising legal and technical objections against it ? The majority of this House is m favour of this Bill, and' he admits that it is not perfect m its present form. Then let him, by his experience and his judicial mind, give us the assistance he can to make it perfect.


Alexander Johnston: With mv lion, friend's permission, I would like to ask him a question. In his judgment, are the majority of this House opposed to the importation and manufacture of tobacco m any form ?	[DOT]


William Ross: Judging by the vote given here to-night, there is a decided opinion of the House in favour of the Bill, and I would desire to see the Bill made more perfect.


Alexander Johnston: But I am talking about tobacco generally ?


William Ross: I am like my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Alexander Johnston) and do not use tobacco in any form, and I believe that the world would be much better if nobody used it.


Mr. GALLIHER.: I had not intended to speak on this Bill, but in view of the discussion that has taken place, I would like to say a few words. I am not a cigarette smoker, but I do enjoy tobacco through the medium of a pipe or cigar. I know how I should feel if legislation were being introduced, or attempted to be introduced, to deprive me of the pleasure I derive from smoking my pipe ; and those who prefer taking tlieir tobacco in the form of a cigar-rette, I think, have an equal right to object to our placing any restriction upon their liberty. I quite agree with the principle of applying the Act so far as concerns children under a certain age. But, for one, I do not think any person has the right to say that a man who is of age and capable of judging for himself shall not smoke cigarettes, any more than he has a right to say that a man shall not eat certain kinds of food. You might as well legislate in one way as in the other, for there are certain kinds of food that are harmful to certain constitutions, just as cigarettes are, and one can ruin his constitution by over-eating as well as over-smoking. I presume that the object of those who support the Bill is to stop the smoking of cigarettes in Canada. If I understand the King's English, this Bill, if passed, will have no such effect. By this Act we simply prohibit the sale of the cigarette, in its manufactured state, and also prohibit the importation of proper cigarettte paper. There is nothing here with regard to tobacco. You can bring in the cigarette tobacco and use any paper-


Charles Fitzpatrick: Newspaper.


William Alfred Galliher: As the hon. minister suggests, you can use newspaper, or you can use a brown paper that may answer the purpose instead of the regular cigarette paper.


Charles Fitzpatrick: You can poison all the children in the country with it.


William Alfred Galliher: There is no question about it, the Bill will not have the effect that the promoters of it desire. As to what was said by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Win. Ross) that the Minister of Justice should suggest amendments, I do not know that that is what the Minister of Justice is here for.


William Ross: He condemns the Bill.


William Alfred Galliher: As I condemn the Bill, because it is a useless Bill. After all, the argument used in support of this Bill is that it will protect the children. Well, so far as that is concerned, I support such legislation, but I believe the best way to embody

it is in the amendment to the Criminal Code which the Minister of Justice offered last session to bring in. But, as to making this applicable to grown men, I believe that object cannot be effected, and so I shall vote against the Bill.


Mr. BOURASSA.: I have received several petitions from my county from that worthy organization that has been several times referred to, the Women's Christian Temperance Union. I may state here what I said in answer to the petitioners, to whom I gave my reasons why I would vote against this Bill. I sympathize with the object of these ladies, and my reasons for opposing this Bill is that if I helped to enact such a law, I should be helping to do the very contrary of what they really want. I go further than some of the opponents of the Bill and say that this will not prevent the use of cigarettes by young men, but it will develop the habit of smoking bad cigarettes by young children. As an opponent of the smoking of cigarettes by children, I will vote against' the Bill, because X know by experience that when boys cannot get cigar-rettes made with proper paper, they do not buy their tobacco in the form of a small cigar, as one hon. gentleman mentioned, but they buy the cigarette tobacco, and wrap it for themselves. As everybody knows the obnoxious effect of cigarettes is not produced by the tobacco, but by the paper, and so, in France, for example, where the manufacture of cigarettes as well of cigars is under the control of the government, they have very careful analyses made of the paper for cigarettes by chemists of the school of science. And the result is that, of all the cigarettes used the French and the Belgian are the least obnoxious. What is proposed here is not progressive legislation, but the most retrogressive legislation that well could be. I will vote against it because I am in sympathy with the movement started by the Women's Christian Temperance Union, and which the hon. member for Huntingdon is in good faith supporting and which I believe will be defeated if this Bill should pass.


Charles Fitzpatrick: So far as I am concerned, I am opposed to the use of tobacco by children in any form. I am likewise opposed to an attempt being made to interfere with the liberty of individuals. If it is legal for a man to use tobacco in his pipe or in the form of a cigar, I see no reason why those who do use it in that form should say that a cigarette smoker should be prevented from using it in the form he prefers. That is the second objection. And the third objection is that this Bill defeats the very object the hon. gentlemen have in view. Instead of aiding the children, you would put in their hands cigarettes of inferior character, you will oblige them to use a cigarette which will be very much more deleterious in its effects than the cigarette now sold. If we are in earnest in this matter and if we are considering this Bill seriously, some answer should be given to these objections.


William Scott Maclaren: I understand the force of the remark made by the Minister of Justice. But what troubles me in connection with this matter is that before cigarettes were introduced in this present form there was not the same use of tobacco by people of tender years. They did not make cigarettes in those days, when they had just as much fine paper to do it with and just as much fine cut tobacco. When those cigarettes were brought in in this particular form, and put into a nice little box with a picture on it, then the use of cigarettes began. I think if you asked 100 boys of this country how they commenced to use tobacco you would find that 90 per cent of them, perhaps 99 per cent, would say that they commenced with the use of cigarettes. Now before these cigarettes came iu they did not roll them up in this way. Probably now that people have got a taste for fancy cigarettes they will follow it up by making them out of all kinds of dirty paper. But to my mind, driving out cigarettes as made in the country at the present time, I am satisfied will diminish the use of tobacco by those of tender years, and that is why I am supporting this legislation.
Section 2 agreed to, yeas 39, nays 25.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is easy to be virtuous at the expense of your neighbour.
On section 3,


Charles Fitzpatrick: Surely we have reached the limit. Before sending people to jail for a year, I hope some one will tell us what is meant by cigarette paper. If it is to be a crime incurring a fine and imprisonment for a year to import cigarette paper, surely we ought to be told what is meant by the words ' cigarette paper.' The time has come when we ought to consider whether we are in earnest or not.


Louis Philippe Demers: I believe that the one who ought to be punished is he who being addicted to the cigarette habit, would refrain from smoking cigarettes in the future, because he is afraid he is going to be fined. It is an axiom of natural law that nobody is bound to obey an unjust law. Therefore, instead of placing upon the statute-book such a penalty as is suggested, it should be enacted here that any one who, being addicted to the cigarette habit, abstains from smoking cigarettes, because he is afraid of breaking the law, shall be liable to be fined.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Will some one please give us information to enable us to understand what is meant by cigarette paper. Is there any such legislation as this on any statute-book in the world ? Where is such legislation as this to be found ?


William Alfred Galliher: 


William Scott Maclaren: I am not so familiar with the statutes as my bon. friend.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is all very fine, but the hon. gentleman ought to be familiar with what he is trying to do. Surely we are entitled to some information about it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Customs will define that.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is not the Minister of Customs. Any magistrate in the country may send a person to prison for a year, any- country magistrate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We merely- declare what the law prohibits.	[DOT]


Mr. GUTHRIE.: There ought to be some definition of a cigarette in this Bill. I am a habitual smoker of cigarettes, one of those sad examples of stunted growth. I think for the sake of public protection we ought to have cigarettes defined. I do not, as a rule, buy them, I make them with my own hands-I do not know whether I would be . considered as a manufacturer or not. But unless there is some definition of what is a cigarette, I think the Bill is very misleading. A cigarette of the same size as the ordinary cigarette, is made with clear tobacco, the purest kind of tobacco and no paper at all is used in its manufacture. Now is the law to exclude such an article ?


William Alfred Galliher: Let us consider this matter seriously. Take section 3 of this Bill-there is no definition of what a cigarette is in the Bill, there is no definition of what cigarette paper is in the Bill. Now who is to decide ? We might have on the bench a magistrate who is a perfect crank, opposed to smoking in any form. A person is charged with selling some paper which is termed cigarette paper-who decides that ? There is no definition in the Act itself. It is left to one man who, as I say, may be a crank on the subject, left to him to decide whether there is a contravention of the Act or not ; and in his hands is placed the power, on his own interpretation, of sending a man to prison for a year. I think we ought to consider what we are doing before we go any further. At all events, if we are going to pass this Bill, let some person who is fathering the Bill, or supporting it, propose some amendment to define what cigarettes and what cigarette papers are. Let us not put ourselves at the mercy of any man who may be sitting as a magistrate to say that the liberty of the subject may be taken away for a year because that magistrate considers that a certain brand of paper is cigarette paper.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It seems to me that some hon. gentlemen are going very far in trying to frustrate the object of this legislation. An Act was passed here a little while ago applying to traders, and when I asked what the word ' trader ' meant, I was
told that a court and jury would define that. This Bill is to the same effect. We are making an act a criminal offence, and we are now told we ought to define what certain things are. Some hon. gentlemen are more particular now than they have been in respect to other matters. I am particularly anxious to pass this section as it stands. If we cannot accomplish the absolute prohibition of an evil that everybody wants to see destroyed, at least we can take a step m the direction of accomplishing it. If we can at any time accomplish it we ought to do so in the interest of this country. It will not do any harm to stop the importation of this material with that object in view and if people are going to be so afraid that they are going to punish for importing cigarette paper because of the want of a definition of it in this Bill the less will be the material imported out of which boys can make cigarettes.


William Alfred Galliher: They can buy it at any store.	*	[DOT]


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This House lias de-dared in favour of this measure.


William Alfred Galliher: Not yet.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It has declared in favour of the measure or we would not have been in committee on it. It has declared in favour of the resolution, it has declared in favour of a Bill founded thereon and it has gone into committee on the Bill. It has declared that cigarettes shall not be imported, manufactured, or offered for sale. If we are going to enforce the sections which have been declared passed by two votes in this House to-night, in order to be consistent we must adopt this section which declares that cigarette paper and wrappers shall not be imported. If we are going to be consistent, if we are going to back our own action, not only last session, but this session, and this night, we must pass this section in order to carry out the tw'o previous sections.
Mr. GALLIHER, The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), when we find him expressing opposition to any Bill, does not want to be cut off short. I suppose that we who do not think this section of the Bill should become law, although apparently it is the intention of the House that it shall, have a perfect right to have our views heard in the matter. I for my part reiterate what I said before. The hon. member for Lincoln says that people will not be so anxious to import this paper knowing that it may be considered to be cigarette paper and that they may be liable to the penalties of this Act. You can go into any drug store to-day and buy paper that answers the purpose of rolling and making cigarettes. You can go into almost any grocery store and get paper that will answer that same purpose, and you can go into a dry goods store and get tissue paper or such

paper as will answer that purpose and yet a magistrate, because of his strong views on this subject, may interpret the sale of that paper simply because a boy or a man used it for making a cigarette, as a violation of the law and may imprison him at his own sweet will.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That law wants to be enforced once to secure its repeal.


Charles Fitzpatrick: And against those who are supporting it.


Alexander Johnston: I really think that we should be a little more serious, and that the people who are not here to speak for themselves are entitled to a little more consideration. The traders of the country are entitled to some consideration, and I submit that if this measure were to become law to-night there are thousands of traders throughout the country who to-morrow morning would be brought up and prosecuted. I submit that there should be a definition as to what is meant by cigarette papers. Do yon mean by cigarette papers, papers out of which cigarettes can be made ? If you mean that there is not a stationer in the city of Ottawa, there is not a stationer throughout the country but who offers for sale paper which will bo suitable for making cigarettes. There can be no question about that and it is a fact that most people will admit. Unless there is some definition I think it is the imperative duty of this House and of those who are supporting this measure to define the meaning of the words ' cigarette paper ' and not submit to prosecution those who are engaged in trade throughout this country.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I submit respectfully after all possible consideration and in all earnestness the question if it is consistent with our dignity to pass legislation in the hope that that legislation may subsequently be frustrated by the action of the Senate. I say that it is not consistent with the dignity of the House that we should take such course as that. I do not want to repeat that because I am not quite certain but that there are some members who are not present in the House to-night who are in the hope that if this legislation goes through this House it will never get through the Senate. Let us try to realize what this means. Take this clause here for instance ; for a second offence if a man happens to sell a cigarette after having been fined once, he goes to jail for a year without the option of a fine. Do we realize what that means ? For a second offence he goes to jail without the option of a line. I do not know that there are any offences on the statute-book in connection with which such a penalty as that is enforced. Is it conceivable that we are going to father legislation imposing such a penalty as that ? [ In the next place do we realize what this >
Mr. GALLIHER
means ? What is going to become of the investors of this country who have entered into the manufacture of cigarettes ? What is going to become of those who have their supplies of paper, tobacco and machinery on hand ? What this means is that we are going deliberately to expropriate the property of these people and in some cases practically ruin them and give them no compensation. They started their industry with the sanction of the law and here we are now without a moment's warning introducing legisltion which will destroy this industry. Do we know what that means ? Are we thinking what it means ? Are we in earnest in passing this legislation ? Surely we ought to reflect upon it. Surely we ought to consider it. It is not conceivable that this legislation is going through and that we are not going to provide some compensation for those whose industry will be affected by it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There is another side to this question that ought to be considered. The object we are aiming at will never be obtained by this kind of legislation. We will make it impossible to get remedial legislation in the near future. This Bill may even pass the Senate-I do not know whether it will pass this House or not- but it has only to be enforced to be repealed. It is a pernicious Act which cannot be enforced. The people of this country will not stand for it when they understand what it means. I say that with the greatest possible respect, because every lion, member in this House has a right to vote as he sees fit, just as I have ; but if the aim of this Bill is to protect the children of this country, it will fail and make that protection much more difficult to provide in future. We have pointed out again and again that the large vote given for the legislation introduced last year was because of the distinct pledges of the mover and seconder of the resolution that their aim was to protect the children of this country from indulging in the use of cigarettes. We could all sympathize with a measure of that kind. Here we have a Bill which proposes to send a man to jail practically without even a fine-a cruel proposition emanating from such a source, an unchristian proposition, if I may apply the term ; and I repeat again, Mr. Chairman, that if the object is to provide legislation to mitigate the evils which undoubtedly follow from the too free use of cigarettes by minors in this country, this legislation will fail and be a barrier in the way of obtaining effective legislation from parliament. I say that with the greatest possible respect. I will not take up any more of the time of the committee, but I would not be doing my duty if I did not enter my protest against the passage of legislation of this kind.


William Scott Maclaren: A blank is very often left in a Bill to be filled in with the
V

length of time that a man has to serve who breaks the law, or the amount of fine that he has to pay. If anybody thinks the offence does not merit such a large fine or such a lengthy imprisonment, it is a matter which is in the hands of the committee. I have no particular feeling in regard to that matter. If it is thought advisable to lessen the term of imprisonment, it can be lessened.


Charles Fitzpatrick: What has the hon. gentleman got to say as to expropriation without compensation ? That is a new principle of legislation in this House. We; are to expropriate the people engaged in this industry and we are not to give them any compensation ; that is a novel departure.


Robert Holmes: I am surprised to hear the Minister of Justice, who ordinarily displays great judgment on questions brought before the House, using such an argument. No man in this country goes into business without taking risks.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Robert Holmes: Yes. If the ar'gument of the Minister of Justice is good, he should remember that you destroy the cigarette business to a limited extent if you make it apply to minors, and as a large proportion of the cigarettes are smoked by minors, then when you prevent minors smoking you destroy the cigarette industry to a large extent, and the Minister of Justice is willing to do that without compensation. I do not believe that this idea of compensation for vested rights will hold water. Parliament cannot be restricted as to the legislation it shall pass within its powers, and if parliament thinks it right and proper to pass such legislation in the public interests, it can do so without there being any just claim for compensation. This proposed legislation has been before the House for months, and if there were any- serious intention of guarding the youth of Canada in this respect, we might have heard something about it before this. There is sufficient public opinion in this country to demand legislation of this kind, at all events so far as it is applicable to minors. I am free to concede that perhaps this Bill goes too far, but failing to get legislation to protect the minors we try to get all we can.


William Alfred Galliher: The Minister of Justice introduced legislation last session amending the Criminal Code so as to protect the minors of Canada from cigarette smoking. Why was not that legislation supported then ? The hon. member (Mr. Holmes) says that failing to get that, he wants this general Act, but it is not the fact that he has failed to get legislation protecting minors. I for one would support 164.
such legislation as would also, I believe, the majority in this House.


Edward Cochrane: Why doesn't the Minister of Justice bring it in now ?


William Alfred Galliher: I cannot answer for the Minister of Justice. Notwithstanding the opinion of the member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) the question of vested rights does enter into the question. It is true in one sense that any one engaging in a business takes risks, but it is not true in every sense, and I would like to know how my hon. friend (Mr. Holmes) would like it, if legislation were passed here preventing him from publishing his newspaper. When a man enters into business that is sanctioned by the laws of the country, he should not take the risk that parliament will wipe out that business without at least giving him compensation ; and it does not matter whether he is a newspaper publisher, a grocer, a whisky seller, or a tobacconist. If you commence to apply the principle of destroying vested rights in an established business without compensation, where are you going to draw the line ? I believe that this question has not been considered seridusly enough by those supporting the Bill.


Edward Cochrane: Why don't you propose an amendment to make it right ?
Mr, GALLIHER. Some of you who are so anxious in support of this Bill; why don't you get up and move an amendment which will make this legislation effective ?


Edward Cochrane: You are a lawyer and you ought to know how to make) the legislation workable. If you are sincere, why don't you propose an amendment and if it appeals to my judgment I will support It ? Why does not the hon. gentleman propose some amendment that will remedy the grievance, that he feels so deep down in his heart to-night ?


William Alfred Galliher: There are questions involved in legislation of this kind which deserve the most careful consideration from this parliament, and in all candour I say that some of the hon. gentlemen who are supporting this Bill do not seen!" to have seriously considered what its effects will be.


Hugh Guthrie: There is considerably more in the question of compensation in connection with this Bill than some people seem to realize. My hon. friend from West Huron had probably in mind a prohibitory liquor law without compensation when he ventured his opinion to-night. The liquor business is carried on under a system of license, but the retail commerce in tobacco, and in dry goods and in all the other branches of trade is not licensed. People have been invited to invest their moneys in this legitimate enterprise ; it differs from a business which is licensed, inasmuch as in the



latter case you invest your capital with your eyes open knowing that you are only specially privileged under that license which may be withdrawn at any time. There is a great deal of capital invested in cigarette manufacturing in this country ; there is the machinery, the tobacco bought, the contracts made for the future, and the employment of labour. I am not personally interested as to whether this Bill shall pass or not. I agree with other gentlemen that there should be an absolute prohibition of the use of all kinds of tobacco so far as minors are concerned, but even if this law were passed I could manufacture a cigarette myself without any breach of it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Every child in the
country could do likewise.


Hugh Guthrie: No it is somewhat of an art. There are men who never smoke a cigarette and it is very easy for them to be virtuous at another man's expense. I will guarantee that the member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) has not, and I doubt if the member for Lincoln ever smoked one either. The Bill as it now stands is badly drawn, it is unworkable. It has been stated here that there is a special kind of tobacco called cigarette tobacco and while that may be, it is still a fact that you can make a very good quality of cigarette out of any ordinary pipe tobacco you buy. .
If the hon. member for Huntingdon will include a provision that no pipe tobacco or plug tobacco is to be brought into the country, I venture to say that a great many members of this House will not vote for the Bill. They will allow themselves the indulgence of the vice from an old nicotinisk pipe, carrying poison in it, but they will not allow another person who has come to years of maturity to smoke tobacco in the mildest form in which it is prepared. That statement is backed up by the London ' Lancet,' an eminent authority, and also by one of the hon. members for Montreal, who spoke in this House last session, and who said that lor a man who had reached his full growth, it was the mildest and least injurious form in which tobacco could be used. If the hon. member for West Huron and the hon. member for Huntingdon are content that the Bill should be limited in its scope to persons under twenty-one years of age, I think we should all be agreed on the subject.


Robert Holmes: 1^ am free to say that 1 think the proposal made by the Minister of Justice last year was under the circumstances, as good a proposal as the one we introduced, and I think that the ladies of the Women's Christian Temperance Union made a mistake in being unwilling to accept it. I want to say, to the credit of the Minister of Justice, that he was not to blame that it was not introduced ; but some one is to blame for the fact that we were not before given the information which we have Mr. GUTHRIE.
obtained during this debate. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) and the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) referred to the remarks I made as to compensating those who made investments in the business. If, in publishing my paper, I make it a menace to society, the government will soon step in and say that I must stop publishing that paper. We pass restrictive legislation in many ways, such as changes in the revenue laws, without granting compensation to those who lose in consequence. At any rate, I think the discussion which we are having to-night will have a beneficial effect, if nothing more than that is accomplished.


Charles Fitzpatrick: With reference to compensation, we must bear in mind that factories for the manufacture of cigarettes are licensed by the government; therefore, the people carrying on that business have been authorized by the government to invest their money in the factory and machinery, and then by legislation of this sort we come along and wipe the whole thing away. What would be thought of legislation proposed in -this House authorizing a railway company to take land without compensation 2 And where is the difference in principle between that sort of legislation and the legislation we are now proposing ?


Edward Cochrane: You license them to do a certain thing, and they pay a license. When you cease to license them, they have no more authority to manufacture.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend confounds two things which are very easily distinguished. I am dealing with a legitimate business. The government might take away a license from the manufacturer, but that would not prevent his machinery being valuable to him. If you license him to carry on a business, you enter into a tacit contract with him that you will give him the protection of the law in carrying on that business. Then you come along with this Bill and destroy his business. The case put by the hon. member for South Wellington was that of a stationer or druggist carrying on a business over which this parliament has no control. He has paper of a certain description and you declare that he must not sell it. He has bought it when the law said he had the right to buy it. You say he must stop selling it and must destroy it. If the paper is found in his possession, he is liable to a penalty. So long as this parliament is content to pass legislation of that sort, the responsibility must rest on those who want to be virtuous at their neighbours' expense. According to this legislation, a man may have his pipe or cigar, but the man who enjoys his cigarette is not to have it. Where is the justice in legislation of that sort ? A remark fell from the lips of one hon. gentleman on the other side of the House which showed what is being done. The hon. gentleman said that the ladies who want this-

legislation passed have not thought of the consequences of it. I am sure we are not old ladies, though we may be acting as such. After all, why should we allow ourselves to be stampeded into legislation of this sort, simply because a cry has been raised in the country which never was intended to be translated into legislation such as this ? What the Women's Christian Temperance Union and the other ladies had in view was to prevent the sale of cigarettes, and tobacco as well, to minors. That is a laudable object and something which we can advocate. I will hold up both hands for that. 1 introduced a Bill last year to prevent the sale of cigarettes to persons under eighteen years of age, but the majority of this House were opposed to it, and those interested in the business were opposed to it also. If we mean to take over the parental authority exercised by parents over their children, if we have abundance of time for that, let us apply it as we ought to apply it. If I have spoken on this Bill more frequently than I usually do, it is because I honestly think this legislation reflects discredit on the House. Perhaps I am wrong in that, because the majority say so. But I think it is not to our credit to have legislation of this sort, the parallel of which is not to be found on any statute-book in the world.
Mr. FOWIjER. I understand that the Minister of Justice is perfectly satisfied to have restrictive legislation so far as the sale of cigarettes to minors is concerned. It has been pointed out that minors are the principal consumers of cigarettes.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Oh, no.


George William Fowler: That has been stated by the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. W. S. Maclaren).


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


George William Fowler: I would think that the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. W. S. Maclaren) would know something about that. Whether that is the case or not, they are large consumers, or this would not be such a widespread evil. If you prevent minors using cigarettes, you will largely restrict the output of the factories, but you do not propose any compensation to them for that. If you can go to that extent you can go the whole extent and put these people out of business.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No.


George William Fowler: The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) said that the reason he was opposed to giving compensation to liquor dealers in the event of prohibition, was that they were dealing under a license. It is the same thing here, these people are dealing under a license.


Hugh Guthrie: I referred to the ordinary retail tobacconists of this or any other city.
164J


George William Fowler: The manufacturers are the people here.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am standing for individual liberty.


George William Fowler: We all stand for individual liberty but not all for individual license. A great many people make the mistake of confounding liberty and license. I think the Bill should pass as it is. I see no difficulty in the way and I am satisfied to have it passed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think that the Minister of Justice has any right to assume that any member is supporting this Bill with the understanding or expectation that the Senate will throw it out. I have heard no such remarks in the House, and the minister has no right to suggest that any member will do other than his duty. The Minister of Justice points out defects in the Bill, but there is no man who should be more capable than he to offer amendments to the Bill that will perfect it. That is his duty, a duty that rests upon him more particularly as a member of the cabinet than upon any other member of this House. The cabinet is responsible for the legislation that passes this House whether it is of a private or public character. If it is defective it is the less to their credit. If it is good, it is the more to their credit. He says there are defects in this Bill in his judgment but he proposes no amendment to it.
Mi1. L. P. DEMERS. In answer to the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) I would say that he made a great mistake in saying that no indemnity should be given. This is a property. These people have invested their money in manufacturing cigarettes, and the manufacture is a property and we cannot deprive them of their property without compensation. Ownership is defined in the Civil Code which is in force, in Quebec, as follows :-
Ownership is the right of enjoying and of disposing of things in the most absolute manner, provided that no use be made of them which is prohibited by law or by regulation.
Surely then the manufacture of cigarettes is an ownership, a property recognized by law. The manufacturer is not using it in a manner prohibited by law, or regulation. The money invested in that property is an ownership recognized by law.
Another paragraph in the code says :
No one can be compelled to give up his property, except for public utility and in consideration of a just indemnity previously paid.
What are we doing here ? We are taking over the property of a man, what he owns, legitimate property for public utility and if we do so, we must give him the indemnity that should be given. That is the law of France, the law of England, the law of Canada, the natural law, and we are violat-

Ing all these laws in order to deprive the citizens of this country of a natural right. I contend that this parliament has no right, nor has any parliament, the right to deprive me of a natural right. You have not the right to prevent me drinking what I like, or smoke what I like. All of these laws are abuses of power, and the duty of a man, if he is worthy of the name, is to violate them, when they come into force because they are against the liberty of men.


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: 
William Scott Maclaren: If it is thought
that the penalty in the third section is too drastic I will have no objection if any one offers an amendment, in fact I would be prepared to amend it myself because I thin v that the penalty is really very heavy. I propose, therefore, to amend clause 3 by striking out the words 1 for the first offence in the fourth line, and also by striking out all the words after ' months ' in the fifth line and inserting instead thereof the words ' not less than one month.'


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The clause would then read :
Any person who, by himself or by another contravenes the provision of this Act in any manner shall incur a penalty not exceeding $100 and not less than $20, and, in default of payment shall be liable to imprisonment to a Mr. DEMERS.
term not exceeding six months and not less than one month.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That means, that
having purged the first offence, you can go on smoking as much as you like ? Is that it ?


Peter Macdonald: The words ' for first offence ' are struck out.
ilr. W. S. MACLAREN. I move for leave to withdraw my amendment.
Motion agreed to and amendment withdrawn.
Motion that section 3 stand part of the Bill agreed to-yeas 39, nays 36.
On section 4,


William Alfred Galliher: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee divided-yeas 37, nays 37.


Peter Macdonald: I vote ' nay.' Motion, Mr. Galliher negatived.
Motion that section 4 stand as part of the Bill agreed to, yeas 41, nays 34.


William Alfred Galliher: I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I think the mover of the Bill should accept the suggestion that in the meantime, before another session, he might consult with the representatives for example, of the Chinese of the Russian government, for I think those are about the only countries where similar legislation could be found. As the legal authorities on both sides of the House have been unable to tell us in what way this legislation could apply, how you could define the offence, and therefore how a judge could apply the penalty, I think surely the hon. members who are responsible for this legislation should get proper information from the only semi-civilized countries in the world where similar legislation has been adopted, before it is put in force in this so-called free country.


Mr. GERVAIS.: I would like to say a few words before this motion is put. In the first place, this Bill is badly drafted. In the next place the effect of this Bill will be to make this House utterly ridiculous throughout the world. I presume the promoters of this Bill desire to prevent young men from smoking cigarettes, but at the same time, there is not one word in it to the effect that only young men will be prevented from smoking cigarettes. The result is that as the Bill stands at present the man who smokes one-fifteenth part of an ounce of tobacco will be sent to the common jail for one year, while the man who smokes one-eighth of an ounce of tobacco will be left free. Can we insert such an illogical clause on our statute-book ? As

pointed out by the hon. member for La-belle (Mr. Bourassa), it is utterly absurd, utterly ridiculous, to insert in our statute-book, this illogical discrimination between the man who smokes a little bit of tobacco and the man who smokes half a pound, the first one being sent to jail and the second one being left free. Under the circumstances I should vote against the Bill. It cannot be amended, it is altogether bad, it is anticommercial, it is immoral, There is no proof that the smoking of tobacco is bad. Tobacco has been in use for centuries, and I have not been able to find, either in philosophy or ethics or medicine, that it is wrong to smoke tobacco. Why should we accept the word of the promoters of this Bill as the word of the gospel ? There is nothing in the gospel against tobacco. For my part I am not willing to take the word of the promoters of this Bill as gospel. Let me say to my hon. friend from West Huron (Mr. Holmes) that it has not been proved that tobacco is a poison. It is no worse to smoke tobacco than it is to use hundreds or thousands of other articles that are in common use in this country. Therefore I say that the aim of the Bill is bad, the Bill itself is bad because it does not discriminate between classes of persons who are to suffer through the application of the Bill. Then X say that the penalties imposed by the Bill are too heavy. For all these reasons I should vote against the adoption of the Bill, not only against this fifth clause, but I am opposed to all the other clauses which have already been adopted by the committee.


William Scott Maclaren: I think those who are opposed to this Bill are going pretty far. They are assuming that all the wisdom in this House is confined to those who are opposed to this Bill, and that those who are supporting this legislation are a lot of incompetents, who really do not know what they are doing. I think it is assuming a little too much. I do not know but those who have voted for this legislation are quite equal in intelligence to those who have voted against it. I have nothing to be ashamed of in connection with this matter. I am in earnest, I think this is good legislation, and I suppose those who are supporting the Bill think it is good legislation. I think that hon. gentlemen go rather far when they try to put us down as a lot of people who don't know the gospel, and who don't know much anyway.
Motion (Mr. Galliher) negatived, yeas 36, nays 38.


Hugh Guthrie: I think it is reasonable to postpone the operation of the Bill at least one year to allow those who have accumulated the stuff to get rid of it. I think the promoter of the Bill would agree with me that it should only come into operation in 1906.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In connection with this amendment, it might be proper for me to suggest that some consideration ought to be given to the question of excise duties which have already been paid on these articles which are to be destroyed. It would be proper for the Minister of Inland Revenue to be here before we finally dispose of this Bill. He might have something to say with regard to refunding duties to those who have paid them.


William Scott Maclaren: That is a departmental affair, I suppose, for the Minister of Inland Revenue.


Hugh Guthrie: That the clause be amended by inserting the word ' six ' in place of the word ' two.'
Section as amended, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to : Yeas, 41; nays, 32.
Bill reported.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that we have reached a somewhat serious task. The House has been led to-night by the Minister of Justice, and the government have been defeated so often that we ought to have some statement from them as to whether they propose to resign or whether they are not willing to resign.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think we ought to have some statement from them.



ADJOURNMENT - CERTIFICATES TO MASTERS AND MATES OF SHIPS.

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to the next order on the order paper, which deals with a very important measure and which has stood at the request of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Pr&fontaine). It is true that the last time it was up the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries said that he would probably introduce legislation this session of the same nature and he did state that at any rate he would give me an opportunity of having this matter dealt with because it is a very important matter to masters and mates oil our inland waters as well as to the travelling public. If the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries renews that pledge now and says that the matter will be dealt with on government orders, I am content to allow the adjournment to take place, but seeing that since the last time this question was up in the House I have received a letter from the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries in which he takes back all he said about going to introduce a measure, saying that he cannot do it this session, I must have it distinctly understood

that if we adjourn now this Bill shall be put upon the government orders and be dealt with in that way, because to-day is the last private members' day, and it will not be reached otherwise.


Mr. PREFONTAINE.: Mr. Speaker, 1 would have been disposed, if the matter had been reached to-day, to have had this Bill along with the Bill introduced by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) to amend the Steamboat Inspection Act sent to a special committee in order to receive a report upon them. As regards the legislation the hon. gentleman is seeking for most of it can be provided for by regulation. I have ascertained that the other which cannot be provided for by regulation is not of so much importance that it cannot wait until next session when we intend to consolidate all the laws concerning this matter. That is the report I get from my officers and if the hon. gentleman is not ready to acquiesce in a submission of these measures to a committee after I have had a conference with him and my hon, friend from North Simcoe, of course his Bill will have to stand until next session.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Do I understand the hon. minister to say now that he is not going to allow this matter if it stands to-night to come up again this session ? I had the pledge of the hon. gentleman the last time this matter was up that if I allowed this Bill to stand then, if it was not reached; it would be put on the order paper and dealt with. I suppose that pledge is still in force, but I want to confirm it. Now, I am prepared to allow it to stand to-night if the hon. minister puts it on the government orders so that we can discuss it. It ought to be discussed in the House. It is a public Bill which has not been discussed. If the hon. gentleman will not now do that, seeing that this is the last day upon which it can come up, I am going to spend the time to talk about it. I am going to let the people of the country understand what the Bill is that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries says is not of much importance. He wants us to understand that the Bill can very well stand until next session. I think it is a great pity at this hour of the night that I am obliged to do this, especially as it involves the going back on an agreement made with me by the hon. gentleman, and made at his own request. This Bill was introduced on the first day that Bills could be introduced in this House. This Bill was introduced and read the first time before the address in reply to the speech from the throne was debated. The first day after it was introduced it came up for a second reading and time after time ever since it has stood either at the request of the right hon. Prime Minister or of the hon. Minister of Justice in the absence of the hon. Minister of Marine and


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Fisheries, but usually it stood at the request of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries himself, who was going to introduce legislation at this session to deal with this matter. The hon. gentleman has stated that it was not of much importance and he gives as his authority some of the officers of his department. The officers of his department did not know what they were talking about when they told him that. The Bill is entitled ' An Act to amend the Act respecting the certificates to masters and mates of ships,' and my amendment deals with the Act as regards inland waters. The Canadian Association of Masters and Mates has been troubled over this matter a great deal, the travelling public, that is those who travel on steamboats have been troubled a good deal about it. The Canadian Association of Masters and Mates finding that the matter was of such importance, and finding apparently that no move was going to be made by the government to remedy the evils of which they complain, met at Toronto last winter; on February 8th, 9th and 10th, and passed resolutions in regard to it. I am speaking from the book entirely when I say that this legislation is absolutely required. It is all very well for some officer in the hon. gentleman's department to tell him that it is not. He has not run steamboats on the lakes. He does not know one-quarter as much about it as the Masters and Mates Association of the Dominion of Canada do. This association would not have passed resolutions asking that the law be amended unless these amendments were necessary. I quote from the minutes of the meeting held in Toronto on February 8th last, this resolution :
Captain Milligan moved, seconded by Captain Jordan, that the Dominion government be memorialized to amend the law so as to make the examination of masters and mates more rigid and to require that all recommendations of a master to a candidate for examination must be made on oath, or the candidate must produce a recommendation from the executive of a branch of this association.
That is the first amendment which my Bill deals with. It requires that the evidence under which a certificate may be issued shall be given under oath. At present part of the qualification of a candidate is that he must have served under a certain master on inland waters for a certain time, and obtain a certificate to this effect. The master, in a great many cases, does not like to refuse, although the candidate may not have compiled with the conditions, and so he gives the certificate, but if he had to swear to it he would not do so. There is no responsibility on the man who makes the statement ; he commits no criminal offence, but at the same time he deceives the department and the public.


William Stevens Fielding: I am sorry to have the debate go on under a misconception. Wc

received information from the other side a full hour ago that it was desirable that we should adjourn, and in making the motion 1 thought I was giving effect to the sense of the House. I desire now to withdraw the motion for adjournment, to let my hon. friend speak to the Bill, and if the House will permit me.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We perhaps might get along quicker if we went into committee. If the motion carries we can speak in committee.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have made the proposition that this and the other order should be referred to a special committee.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I cannot accept that.
I am sick and tired of having it suggested to me that public Bills should go to special committees for the purpose of having them defeated and not considered on their merits. In these special committees they are dealt with in a cursory and careless way, and it simply means that the House shirks its responsibility. I will proceed with my argument now.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There is another very important Bill on the order paper that a great many members are interested in. May I ask the hon. gentleman who is leading the House if it would not be possible to make an arrangement by which we could have another opportunity of discussing these Bills ?


William Stevens Fielding: The Prime Minister intimated the other day that it might be found necessary to name another special day, but in his absence I would not care to make any agreement on the subject. It is quite possible that such an arrangement could be made, but I am not at liberty to make any arrangement in his absence.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then I will go on. As I have said, the first amendment is in regard to the evidence being under oath. The Minister of Marine says this might be made a matter of regulation, but this constant government by Order in Council is merely taking away the right of parliament, which is to make a law which every one is bound to carry out, and which cannot be altered from time to time. The second amendment is very important, and it deals with the nationality of masters and mates sailing Canadian ships. In the United States one must be an American citizen before he can be master or mate of any boat owned in the United States ; and, therefore, it is that in boats plying side by side in the same waters the American boat must have an American captain, whereas the captain of the Canadian boat need not be a British subject. This is unfair, and it should be remedied. An American citizen can come into Canada and get a boat, which otherwise would be commanded by a Canadian, but before a British subject can command an American boat he must become an American citizen. The
Masters and Mates Association have dealt with this subject in the following resolution :
Moved by Captain Milligan, seeconded by Captain Jordan, that this association memorialize the Dominion government to cancel all certificates of masters and mates held by persons who have gone, or may go, to the United States and obtain certificates to sail vessels, where such persons are required to swear allegiance to the United States in order to qualify them to obtain such American certificates. .
That is the recommendation of the Canadian masters and mates with regard to that. It seems to me that I should only have to state this case to get the unanimous support of this House for this measure, except that of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who seems to think it ought not to pass. The case is so obvious that it looks to me like an insult to the intelligence of this House to argue that a man who is not a British subject should be allowed to come into Canada and take away from masters and mates who choose to remain British subjects their occupation, and at the same time to say to Canadian masters and mates that they shall not have a similar privilege in the other country. The next amendment I wish to make is :	[DOT]
No person shall be entitled to present himself for examination for master until he has obtained a certificate of competency as mate, and has served as such for at least twelve months, and furnishes a statutory declaration of the master under whom he served of such service.
I wish to add that to the section which deals with that matter. That is recommended also by the same association which deals with it in this way :
Waiting the arrival of the St. Catharines delegates an informal discussion took place as to the administration of the law respecting certificates to masters and mates. Instances were given in which certificates of competency were granted to a number of persons who had served as pursers and in other like capacities, but who had no knowledge of seamanship whatever and never sailed a boat. No person should be granted a certificate as a mate unless he had served twenty-four months as wheelman and no one to be allowed to take masters' papers unless he has obtained a certificate of competency as mate and has served as such at least twenty-four months.
The next amendment I wish to make reads as follows :
No person shall be entitled to present himself for examination as mate until he has served as wheelman for the period of twenty-four months, and furnishes to the examiner a statutory declaration of the master under whom he served of such service.
These are the two sections which are dealt with in the resolution which I have just read. Now I come to a matter which it is a wonder to me has not been amended long ago. Nobody, however, noticed it. It

is a matter which should only require to be stated in order to have this House correct it. It will hardly be believed by hon. members that the men who are examining candidates for masters' and mates' certificates do not require to be qualified themselves. Anybody can be appointed an examiner for masters and mates in inland waters. All up through these lakes, which are considered more dangerous than the Atlantic ocean, because the storms come up more quickly, and there is less sea room, men who should be most competent are allowed to pass examinations held by anybody whom the government appoint, and who need not know anything about the subject. It is just as if lawyers were to be examined by dry goods merchants or carpenters or blacksmiths, or any other men who do not know anything about law. Perhaps the hon minister will say that the government would not appoint a man who was not a competent lake master. But it is just as well for the government to have the law behind them, so as to enable them to resist successfully the importunities of persons who might want the appointment in return for some political service. The government should not appoint as an examiner any one who is not himself a competent lake navigator ; and it is well for the government to be strengthened by the law on the subject. That matter is dealt with also by a resolution of the Canadian Association of Masters and Mates passed on February 8th of this year, at the city of Toronto. It seems that to-day a collector of customs is the examiner of masters and mates ; and this motion is in these words :
Moved by Capt. Crawford, seconded by Capt. Gidley, that we petition the Dominion government to rescind the Order in Council which makes collectors of customs examiners of masters and mates, and the amendments to the law to provide for the statement of qualified examiners who shall be paid a stated salary instead of by fees as at present ; the examiners to be appointed to be in all cases competent lake navigators.
Following out the recommendation of that resolution, I have this amendment in mv Bill :
Section 4 of the Act respecting Certificates to masters and mates of ships is amended by adding after the word * examiners ' in the sixth line the words ' which shall be by salary, and not in any way affected by the number or results of the examinations,' and also by adding after the word ' effect * in the last line the words ' but no person shall be appointed an examiner in respect to masters and mates of ships trading on the inland waters or on coasting voyages unless he himself is a competent lake navigator and has a certificate to that effect.'
Under this nobody could be an examiner who was not a navigator. We have the additional almost ridiculous state of affairs, that the examiner is paid fees, and it is his interest to pass the man who seeks to be Mr. LANCASTER.
examined, and as a result he may drown people instead of carrying them safely. The Bill provides that the examiners shall be paid salaries. There are only two men in the province of Ontario to-day who would be examiners. One lives at St. Catharines, and the other I believe is generally found at Toronto. The Auditor General's Report show the fees they received last year. I am told by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that it is his intention to have these gentlemen salaried. I am simply carrying out his intention in this Act. Since this Act has been printed and before that time, the minister told me verbally and in a lettter that it is his intention to make these officers salaried officers, although they are not salaried at present. Then why should he oppose this amendment ? It is in the interest of public policy that examiners should not be affected financially by the fact of those who come before them for qualification passing or not' passing. That is the only way in which we can expect proper examinations and care in results.
The next amendment is that:
The section substituted for section 7 of the said Act by section 2 of chapter 41 of the statutes of 1891 is amended by adding after the word ' boats ' in the fourteenth line the words ' such certificates to be conditioned to become void upon " the holder thereof renouncing his allegiance to the British Crown." '
That is auxiliary to the carrying out of what I have contended for in regard to British subjects. If a man gets a certificate and afterwards ceases to be a British subject, by going to the United States or any other foreign country and becoming a naturalized subject of such country, then his Canadian certificate as master or mate should be of no value.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Can we confer upon a foreigner the rights of a British subject in Canada ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No doubt and we are saying that if they are not British subjects they cannot be masters and mates of British boats.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Therefore you cannot give them the quality necessary to bfe>
masters and mates.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I cannot see how we are saying they shall not be British subjects by that. We are saying that if they are not British subjects they are not fit to run Canadian boats. The American government says if they are not Americans they are not fit to run American boats.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If they are naturalized Canadians would not that be sufficient ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 
Charles Fitzpatrick: That is all we can do in Canada.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There is no flag in Canada other than the British Flag. If they are naturalized Canadians they are only naturalized British subjects. There is) no other citizen of a British country than a citizen of Great Britain and Ireland. There may be a Canadian but he is a British subject. If he is qualified to hold any position in Canada it is because he is a British subject. Surely the Minister of Justice does not contend that Canada can have citizens who are not subjects of Great Britain.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I contend as a most elementary legal principle that you cannot confer upon a foreigner the rights of a British subject. You can give him certain rights but not the rights of a British subject ; that js within the exclusive jurisdiction of the British parliament.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We can certainly say who shall be masters and mates on our vessels.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, we can do that.	.
Mr, LANCASTER. If we say ' British subject ' does not that include Canadian citizens. Is the Minister of Justice not a subject of Great Britain, am I not one. is my boy in St. Catharines, born in Grimsby, in the county of Lincoln, in the Dominion of Canada not a British subject ? If I was goingi the length of saying what should make a man a British subject for the purposes of this Bill that would be different, but I am simply saying that no matter what constitutes a man a British subject, if he is one he is qualified to be a master or mate of a British vessel. The government of the United States will not allow a man who is a British subject and a Canadian citizen also to run a boat there, and we should protect our masters and mates and see that Americans are not allowed to come oven here and take their situations. For illustration. If an American master should come over to St. Catharines and obtain command of a Canadian boat, putting a Canadian out of his place, and if that Canadian should go to Buffalo and try to get the place vacated by the other man he could not do so because he was not an American citizen. An American, however, could go from country to country in alternate years in this way, commanding first an American and then a Canadian boat, but as the Canadian is a British subject, he Is limited to taking the boats he could get in Canada and if the. other man was willing to take $10 a month less, and put him out of his position then the Canadian would not be able to get a boat in the United States. If you want to protect Canadian workingmen and the people of Canada you should see that their boats are run by Canadian citizens and British subjects. The statute that I propose to amend is chapter 42 of the statutes of 1894,
section 4, which Act itself amended the Revised Statutes relating to the certificates of masters and mates. This section now reads :
Examinations may be instituted in Canada for British subjects or persons domiciled in Canada for at least three years.
So, the word ' British subject ' is used in the statute.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The question is whether we can make British subjects in Canada.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is meant by the word 'British subject' in this statute? It is strange, what new, technical objections are raised, now to statutes that have been left unquestioned for years. This statute was passed in 1894, and the Minister of Justice, if not actually Minister of Justice all the time, has been in power since 1896. Yet, he has not changed the section of this Act. For my part I am prepared to take chances on whether a British subject is a Canadian citizen or not, or whether a Canadian citizen can be anything but a British subject. The statute provides that examinations can be instituted for British subjects and those are the fellows I want. The Minister of Justice and I need not quarrel about what the word ' British subject ' means. The statute provides that the examinations may be instituted for British subjects or for persons domiciled in Canada for at least three years. I want to strike out the words * or for persons ' in the second line. So, it would read :
Examinations may be instituted in Canada for British subjects domiciled in Canada for at least three years.
So, the Minister of Justice must not blame me for using the words 'British subjects ; my amendment does not contain these words at all. I did not put those words in the statute and all I am doing is simply not taking them out of it-I can leave them where they have been ever since 1894. It seems to me that the amendment I propose is not only in the interest of navigation generally and of all who travel in steamboats in Canada. The section in full reads :
Examinations may be instituted in Canada, for British subjects or for persons domiciled in Canada for at least three years who intend to become masters or mates of ships trading on the inland waters of Canada, or on the minor waters of Canada or on coasting voyages, or who wish to procure the certificates of competency or service hereinafter mentioned ; and foreign subjects serving in ships registered in Canada, and trading on the inland waters of Canada, or on the minor waters of Canada, or on coasting voyages,

shall be deemed to be domiciled in Canada while so serving.
So, under the present statute, while working here a foreign subject can get the benefit of the three years' residence, under my amendment, he cannot get the certificate unless he becomes a British subject. 1 am supported here by the resolution moved by Captain Milligan that I have already read. There was a further resolution :
Captain Gidley moved, seconded by Captain Dix, that a committee composed of Captains Milligan, McCoppen and Boyle, St. Catherines, be appointed, with Mr. Lancaster, M.P., for Lincoln, to revise the Act relating to masters and mates, prepare amendments to said Acts in the shape of a Bill on the line of the resolutions passed and suggestions made at this meeting, and that it he presented at the coming session of parliament.-Carried.
In response to that request I met that committee on several occasions, they being good enough to come to St. Catharines to see me. They requested me to put the matter into shape, and so I have put it in legal phraseology in this Bill. It was gone over carefully, and after it was printed it was gone over again just as carefully. I am authorized to say that the Bill I am advocating is in every particular exactly what the Canadian Association of Masters and Mates want. Now, in case any hon. gentleman should charge me with carelessness in not ascertaining the facts as to who can be a mate or a master in a United States vessel, I will refer to the revised statutes of the United States, sections 2165 and 2174. I need not trouble this House with the former, because it merely sets forth what a man has to do in order to become a eitizen of the United States. But section 2174 provides as follows :
Every seaman being a foreigner who declares his intention of becoming a citizen of the United States in any competent court and shall have served three years on board of a merchant vessel of the United States subsequent to the date of such declaration, may on his application to any competent court and the production of his certificate of discharge and good conduct during that time, together with the certificate of his declaration of intention to become a citizen, be admitted a citizen of the United States ; and every seaman being a foreigner shall after his declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States for the purpose of manning and serving on board any merchant vessel of the United Stafes, anything to the contrary in any Act of congress notwithstanding, hut such seaman shall for all purposes of protection as an American citizen he deemed such after the filing of his declaration of intention to become such citizen

	-


Charles Fitzpatrick: Does that mean that they are to be citizens of the United States ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The time referred to is the time he has served on the vessel of the Mr. LANCASTER.
United States-three years-and on application and production of his certificate of discharge and good conduct-
-together with the certificate of his declaration of intention to become a citizen, be admitted a citizen of the United States.
He then becomes a citizen of the United States and can vote. He becomes a citizen of the United States by making a declaration of his intention and by serving three years on a United States vessel. But no British subject who is going to remain a British subject will go over there and declare his intention of foreswearing Great Britain and sailing in an American vessel for the purpose of doing it. Now, here is the statement of the United States local inspectors, dated March 12, 1904, and signed Frederick L. R. Pope and Joseph H. Sckumocher. They are the United States local inspectors, and are attached to the Department of Labour and Commerce in the United States. They write this letter, addressed to Mr. W. D. Graham, secretary of the Canadian Association of Masters and Mates, St. Catharines Branch, No. 8, St. Catharines, Ontario :
In reply to your second question, an Act of congress approved May 28, 1896, provides that, after the 1st day of January, 1^97, no person shall be qualified to hold a license as a commander or watch officer of a merchant vessel of the United States who is not a native born citizen or whose naturalization as a citizen shall not have been fully completed.
That is the present law of the United States. So, that on aill grounds it seems to me these amendments I propose ought to be adopted. I trust the House will see that no harm can be done and a good deal of good may be done to the travelling public by adopting these amendments.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: As I stated just now, there is no necessity whatever for passing this Bill during this session. We have received no serious complaints yet in the department. The only difficulty about the Act is that it has been amended so many times that it needs' consolidation, together with some slight amendments. I gave instructions to the chairman of the examiners to prepare a consolidation of the Bill, but unfortunately he was called away to some other business. He informed me in the beginning of May that he could not go on with the consolidation. Therefore, on the 3rd of May, I wrote the following letter to the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), explaining to him that the effect of amendments he proposed could be carried out by regulations. I do not know why the hon. gentleman persists in pushing this Bill in face of the promises that have been made to him, and in face of the fact that most of his amendments are already provided for in the law now existing. For the information of the House I may read that letter, which covers the whole ground :

Ottawa, 3rd May, 1904. Dear Mr. Lancaster,-In my letter to you of the 22nd March I notified you that the amendments you proposed to make to the Masters' and Mates' Act would be embodied in a new Act which is being prepared in my department, and considering there is nothing in your amendment which calls for urgent legislation I think you might rest satisfied with my pledge. Unfortunately, owing to a heavy pressure of work, the new Bill which I propose to introduce will not be ready in time for this session of parliament. You must understand that a Bill of this nature requires most careful consideration, and if I were to decide upon introducing it this session, before every clause has been duly thought out, the result would probably necessitate the passing of several amendments in the near future.
There are reasons why I am not disposed to allow your amendment, the principal one being that you wish to introduce a great deal of matter into the Act which belongs exclusively to the regulations.
In the first section of your amendment I take it that it is your desire to obtain a more definite guarantee of applicants' service than at present exists, by requiring that their testimonials should be sworn to. This is a question of proof of service, and as such belongs to the regulations to be decided upon by the Governor in Council. New regulations will be issued when my Bill has passed, and in this respect they provide a better arrangement than you propose, namely, the production of official discharges.
Referring to the second part of the first section of your amendment, your desire to exclude foreigners has also the effect of disqualifying British subjects other than those domiciled in this country, that is to say, officers and men serving on ships registered in Great Britain or any part of the British dominions except Canada would not be entitled to examination. Perhaps you are not aware that our foreign-going certificates are recognized by the Imper.nial Board of Trade and any British possession declared by order of Her Majesty in Council under the provisions of the Merchants Shipping (Colonial) Act of 1869, as equivalent to their own, but only on condition that we adopt the same regulations with regard to the examination of candidates. In my new Bill I provided that only British subjects are qualified for examination.
In subsection 2 of section 2 of your amendment you again deal with matter pertaining to the regulations and for which there is no place in the Act. Twelve months' compulsory service as mate with a mate's certificate which you desire, is provided for in the new regulations, but with this difference, that official discharges are required in place of a statutory declaration.
In subsection 3 of the_ same section you are again encroaching on the regulations by providing that certain service as wheelman will be necessary to entitle an applicant to a mates' examination. This grade of wheelsmen mentioned by you if allowed to pass would disquanify apprentices, seamen, mates, boatswains. pursers, pilots and masters, all of whom have every right to claim examination. The twenty-four months' service you desire is 'provided for in the new regulations.
In section 3 of your amendment you have again borrowed material from the regulations to place in the Act, which, in my opinion, is . quite unnecessary and superfluous as tending to curtail the powers of the Governor in Council. No less than eight examiners are at present on salary and eventually I intend to put them on the same footing, that is to say, when the chief examiner assures me that the salaries can be earned. In the second part of this section you require that no person shall be appointed an examiner of coasting and inland waters' candidates unless he is himself a competent lake navigator and has a certfi-cate to that effect. You do not appear to be aware of the fact that a lake navigator is incompetent to command a vessel in the coasting trade. My new Bill provides that not only shall the examiner hold a certificate but he is required to pass a satisfactory examination before two other examiners to show his competency to examine candidates.
Section 4 of your amendment requiring certificates to be so conditioned that they become void in the event of the holder renouncing his allegiance to the British Crown, is too unreasonable for me to countenance. A certificate once gained is the property of the holder and has been duly paid for, and like any other property he may own must belong to him unless he has committed some crime which renders its forfeiture necessary.
The same objection applies to section 5 of your amendment.
I made just now a proposition to the hon. gentleman to have this matter referred to a special committee of this House, along with another Bill ; so I think it is quite unreasonable. under these circumstance, to pass this Bill, especially when there is no urgency for it.


James Clancy: The lion. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Piv-fontaine) has in the closing words of ins speech given the whole reason for sending this to a special committed. The hon. gentleman said that my hon. friend's Bill is quite unreasonable. What does he want to send it to a committee for ? To shirk the responsibility that he would assume by refusing to take up this measure in this House, absolutely that is the reason. The hon. gentleman declares that a master or mate may not be a British subject and that if a master or mate ceases to be a British subject he may still retain the rights of a British subject and he is not willing to have the proposals of my hon. friend crystallized into the. legislation of Canada. The hon. gentleman proposes to have one measure of justice meted out to Canadians who go to the other side and to have a different kind of treatment for those who come from the other side to this country. The hon. gentleman says there is no demand for this legislation. There is no demand because the hon. gentleman is not in the mood to take up such legislation. The hon. gentleman thinks it is sacri-

lege that he should pass any legislation In this House which interferes with the regulations of his department. I will venture to say that the letter read here to-night was prepared by his own deputies or officers. Everybody knows that the hon. gentleman does not know anything about it. I am not doing the hon. gentleman any injustice when I say that. We all recognize that he is new in his department. I am not reflecting in the slightest on the hon. gentleman in saying that he cannot master these things in a day, but it is perfectly apparent from the letter which the hon. gentleman has read that he has red tape in his department. The hon. gentleman is content with that system of red tape which grows up in the department here. Every man knows that the time comes when we have entirely changed conditions, outgrowing that state of things, and we therefore should make changes when it is necessary to do so. What was rather astonishing was the attitude of the hon. Minister of Justice. He says that we are now attempting to declare who shall be a British subject. That is a most extraordinary declaration as far as It bears upon the legislation of this House. For all the purposes for which a man may become a British subject in Canada provision is now made. In regard to the franchise, is there any question as to whether we can make a British subject or not ? These are only some of the pretexts that hon. gentlemen will offer in opposition to such legislation as this. I think there is one plain, necessary rule that can be laid down in Canada, and that is, that a Canadian has a better right in this country than any alien has. If any man who has been a Canadian or who is a British born subject and who alienates his right by becoming a citizen of a foreign state, desires to come back to Canada and to exercise the rights to which he was born, he may become a British subject again by naturalization, which would place him in the same position as that which he occupied before. He should become a British subject before he should be permitted to exercise the right of a Canadian. Let us take the example of the country to the south of us. I am not finding fault with the system which prevails there. I think the people to the south of us are rather to be applauded for the decided preference which they have shown for their own people. If there is anything that solidifies and builds up a country, if there is anything that has a tendency'to make people attached to their country, it is that they shall have that protection in their own country that citizens of other countries receive from their own state. I do not think that this is a Bill that requires any elaboration. My hon. friend from Lincoln who has introduced the Bill has stated in the most concise terms what he proposes. One of the things which he proposes, and it is not a Mr. CLANCY.
matter to be settled by regulation, is that the examiners shall be qualified persons, that they shall be paid and that there shall be no inducement to pass candidates. That is not a matter of regulation and if it were one, if we are to judge at all even by inference from what the hon. minister has stated, it would be a very loose sort of regulation. .It is not a matter of regulation as to whether a master or mate shall be a British subject. Th'e hon. minister has declared in the most emphatic terms and he crystallized it in that letter which he has now embalmed on ' Hansard ' that he does not think that the candidate ought to be a British subject. He says he would not consent to that. Does he propose to send this Bill to a committee to ask Canadians to stifle that proposal and to let him out of the responsibility of saying that masters and mates shall not be Canadians or British subjects ? When I use the word ' Canadians ' I mean Canadians in the broadest sense. I do not intend it to be confined to persons born in Canada. One might be a Canadian born in Canada and not a British subject. He may have been born in Canada and taken the oath of allegiance to a foreign state. If he- does that he forfeits his rights. I do not for one moment believe that the hon. gentleman will take the responsibility of standing in the way of giving effect to so reasonable a Bill, and I do not believe he will have the support of hon. gentlemen on that side of the House if he does so.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is carried there are two or three words that I should like to say about this Bill. If I understand this Bill correctly the experience and ability of the men who are to navigate our Canadian ships are in no way interfered with. Every precaution surrounds the procedure introduced into this Bill by my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster), to secure that in future none but qualified mariners shall navigate our vessels. The necessary qualification for a person before he can pass an examination as master is that he shall have served twelve months as mate and that before he is qualified to pass as mate he shall have served twenty-four months as wheelsman, and he must produce a certificate from the master on the vessel on which he served ns wheelsman to that effect. What the public are interested in is that the men who have charge of our Canadian ships shall be competent. My hon. friend relaxes no provision existing in the law now. He does not interfere with the qualifications of the men who are to navigate our Canadian vessels. They must be men of experience and ability. The other provision that he asks shall be incorporated in the law is that the men who navigate these ships shall be Canadians or British subjects. He has given abundant reasons why that amendment should be

made in the law. If there were a dearth of skilled mariners there might be an objection taken to an amendment of that kind, but that objection has not been urged by the- Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine), and it cannot be urged by any hon. gentleman who knows anything about navigation upon the lakes. There is only a limited number of vessels in Canada. There is an ample number of qualified men to navigate these vessels and my hon. friend asks that preference shall be given to Canadians. I think he is quite right in asking that that amendment shall be made. It is not fair to Canadian mariners that American citizens should come over here and qualify themselves by passing the Canadian examination to take charge of Canadian vessels, who. in after years, may go back to the other side and take command of American vessels.
The law as it exists places Canadians ini a secondary position to American navigators. I cannot for the life of me see what solid objection can be advanced by the Min-, ister of Marine to the passage of this Bill. If there were a dearth of qualified Canadian mariners to navigate our vessels on the 'great lakes that might be given as a reason, but that reason does not exist. Our navigators are not permitted to navigate American ships, and It is most unfair to American labour, that foreigners should be permitted to come over here when it suits them, and take the command of Canadian vessels at probably lower wages than our, own people would want. The hon. gentle-, man (Mr. Lancaster) is entitled to the thanks of the Canadian marine for his efforts to promote this measure ; the responsibility for defeating it rests with the government and their supporters.
House divided on motion (Mr. Lancaster) for second reading of Bill.
YEAS :
Messieurs
Muloek (Sir William), Prefontaine,
Ross (Victoria, N.S.), Scott,
Sifton,
Sinclair,
Smith (Vancouver), Stewart,
Johnston (Cape Breton), Talbot, and Lang,	Wright.-39.
Loy,
Motion negatived.



ADJOURNMENT-DISMISSAL OF LORD DUNDONALD.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would ask the government to complete the record of the Dundonald papers. At page 32 of the printed report there is a list of officers: submitted, 6th of May, 1904, by Lieutenant Colonel Smart to Hon. Sydney Fisher ; I would like to have the original paper connected with that letter. At page 32 of the same report, accompanying the letter of the Hon. Sydney Fisher, there is a memorandum and I would like to have the original of that memorandum. I also want the original of the letter referred to in the letter of the 19th of May, from Lieutenant Colonel Smart to the Hon. Mr. Fisher. I ask that the originals of these three documents be placed on the table of the House. At page 26, reference is made to letters of the 14th and 15th of May, 1904, from Lieutenant Colonel Whitley to the Hon. Mr. Fisher, and the inclosures- referred to in Mr. Fisher's letters of the 20th of May to Colonel Whitley-I would ask to have these letters brought down. There are also several other letters that are mentioned in that letter from Mr. Fisher. On page 26 of the report I find the following i
I have written to our friends telling them that this has been done and urging them to take hold of their work energetically and loyally, and I am sure they will do so.
Fisher,
Fitzpatrick,
Galliher,
Gauvreau,
Gervais,
Girard,
Grant,
Holmes,
Bell,
Bennett,
Clancy,
Clare,
Clarke,
Culbert,
Daniel.
Earle,
Fowler,
Hackett, Lancaster, MacLaren (Perth), Monk,
Puttee,
Richardson, and Sproule.-16.
NAYS :
Messieurs
Angers,
Bourassa,
Brown,
Bureau,
Costigan,
Delisle,
Demers (St. John),
Emmerson,
Fielding,
Mackie,
MacKinnon,
Macpherson,
McGugan,
Mclsaac,
Marcil (Bagot), Marcil (Bonaventure), Matheson,
Morrison,
We have not the copies of these letters.' In addition to that I would ask for the production of all letters from the Hon. Mr. Fisher to Mr. McNeil Miltimore and to all other persons relating to the 13th Scottish Light Dragoons, and to the appointment of any of the officers of that regiment. Also for all reports or returns to the Militia Department by Mr. McNeil Miltimore or any other persons in any way relating to the Dundonald Rifle Club at Sweetsburg, or to the ranges used by the club, or to the clubs services, proceedings or expenses. I have no doubt the government is anxious to complete that record. The documents I mentioned in the last place are not referred to in the return already brought down ; but as they have reference to this matter I suppose they will be produced.


William Stevens Fielding: Does my hon. friend want the originals or certain documents which he mentioned ? Are the copies on the table, and he wants the originals, or are they something which are not brought down ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The copies are in the return, but I would like to have the originals. I do not think any of the documents I have asked for are private.


William Stevens Fielding: The attention of the ministers concerned will be called to the hon. gentleman's request, and if there are any papers belonging to the record which are not private, 1 am sure they will be brought down.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Thomas Simpson Sproule: Since the minister refused to answer the question I put to him some time ago, as to whether in view of their various defeats to-night the government intended to resign, or whether like the Hon. G. W. Ross, they intend to hold on ; if they do hold on, they might tell us what business will be taken up to-morrow.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) is expecting an early call from His Excellency, he will be disappointed. Tomorrow we intend to invite the attention of the House to the consideration of the Bills on the order paper which' chiefly concern the Minister of Marine. We will not take up the Militia Bill. If we have sufficient time we will go into supply with the estimates of the Marine Department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The premier intimated that he might give some information tonight with respect to the Election Law Bill. Has the Finance Minister any information to give ?


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot give an answer to that to-night.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There is on the order! paper the second reading of the Bill to amend the Steamboat Inspection Act in the name of Mr. MacCarthy, and the second reading of the Bill respecting Union Labels. Will the government give the House an op-< portunity of discussing these measures.


William Stevens Fielding: An intimation has been given by the premier that an opportunity will be given to discuss one of these Bills,) but whether the premier meant that a day would be given for Public Bills generally.
I am not quite prepared to say. I would ask my hon. friend to renew that question, when the Prime Minister is in his seat.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.45 a.m., Tuesday.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Tuesday, June 21, 1904.