1904-06-13

Mr. W. M. GERMAN.: Mr. Speakei, before the Orders of the Day are called, I desire, by way of personal explanation, to bring to the attention of the House a speech which is reported in 1 Hansard ' of June 10 as having been made by the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes). The hon. member, speaking of the 2nd Dragoons in the Niagara peninsula, in connection with alleged political interference in militia matters, is reported as having said :
. An officer second in command, not yet qualified to command, communicated with the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German), and he, in language more befitting Carnal street, Buffalo, than an hon. member in this House, stated that Lord Dundonald would be taught that he had no power to give the extension. I shall give the story, and then we shall see whether the facts bear it out or not. He made the statement that there would be no extension -of command, and the notice which Lord Dundonald - had given was cancelled.
Further down he said :
I have not said that the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) wrote or spoke to the minister, but I have stated that the hon. member for Welland stated that in his county.
Now, Sir, I am not aware what sort of language is peculiarly fitted for Canal street, Buffalo. Evidently the hon. member does, possibly from experience. But I do say that no officer, second in command or otherwise, of the 2nd Dragoons asked me at any time to interfere to prevent Colonel Gregory from getting an extension of his command. I at no time spoke to the minister or to any officer of the department suggesting that Colonel Gregory should not get an extension, or that any recommendation that should be made for him to have an extension should be cancelled. During the last winter i had the honour of dining with Colonel Gregory and other officers of the 2nd Dragoons at St. Catharines. My hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) also was present. On that occasion Colonel Gregory stated that he had been recommended for an extension of his

term of command. I had the honour and pleasure then of congratulating him upon that fact, and never at any time did I suggest that he should not get or receive that extension. The statement that I said that Lord Dundonald would be taught that he had no power to give the extension is absolutely and unequivocally untrue. I never made such a remark ; X never made any remark which, by any tortuous construction, could be so interpreted ; and I defy the hon. member to bring any individual who will suggest that I ever made any remark that could possibly be interpreted in that way, 1 am inclined to think that it has been evolved from the hon. member's own vivid imagination.	_



TIXE COAL OIL DUTY.

Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG.: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to draw the attention of the government to the serious state of affairs among the crude oil producers in the counties of Lambton, Essex, Kent, Elgin and Middlesex. When the government brought down their tariff resolutions they do not seem to have made any provision for paying the crude oil producers their bounty. The crude oil is gathered in tank wagons and shipped in pipe lines to the receiving station. The crude producer takes receipts for the oil as he delivers it, and receives payment for the receipts from the Standard Oil Company or from 'the independent refiner. For several days they have been receiving only $1.62 a barrel. Previously they received $2.09 a barrel. What I am anxious to know is how these men are going to get their bounty money. There are hundreds of them scattered throughout those counties, who have been receiving payment from the refiners at the $1.62 rate. I would like the Finance Minister to explain how these men are likely to get their money, and how soon.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: I am sorry that I cannot give the information which the hon. gentleman wants, nor is it possible for anybody to give it. The payment of a bounty requires an Act of this parliament. Notice of motion has been given, and in due course that notice of motion will come forward. If it is found to be in any way defective, we will, of course have it rectified to make it serve the purpose announced. It will then be crystallized into an Act of parliament, and that Act, as usual, will take effect from the date on which the announcement was made. Until that Act passes we shall not be in a position to pay a cent of bounty to any one. As to the details which the hon. gentleman mentions, these have been brought to the attention of the government by several gentlemen. To these and other questions relating to the tariff we shall give careful, attention, and when the resolutions come up to be dealt with, we shall endeavour to make them as Mr. GERMAN.
satisfactory as possible. But it is not possible at present to state to my bon. friend more than I have now said.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Seeing that it is customary that tariffs, when they are changed, are brought into effect on a date when no inconvenience would be caused to any one, had the Minister of Finance, in his statement with reference to the tariff on oil, stated that it would come into effect on the 1st of July, I feel satisfied that we should have had very little trouble, and the government would have had time to investigate the matter. But it seems to me that the government of this country were anxious to make a sort of fireworks display-


William Stevens Fielding: Order. The hon. gentleman has a right to ask for an explanation. He has no right to make a speech unless he intends to move the adjournment of the House, and I think there is nothing in the circumstances to warrant it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Then let me state the predicament the producers are in. They are not likely to receive the bounty themselves-


Mr. COWAN.: Why not make the speech on the tariff ?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I will make it, my good fellow ; and you will not perhaps be so happy after it is made.


Mahlon K. Cowan: My learned friend always makes me happy.


Mr. CLANCY.: I desire to state what is within the knowledge of the Minister of Finance, that the citizens of the town of Sarnia have sent to the government a largely signed petition having regard to the supposed readjustment of the duties on crude and refined oils. I would ask the Minister of Ifinance if he has any objection to laying that petition on the table ?


William Stevens Fielding: I know of no objection I have already furnished a copy privately to hon. gentlemen opposite, and I will have another copy prepared and laid on the table.



THE LOBSTER FISHERIES.

Mr. A. A. LEFURGEY.: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I have a matter of some importance to bring up respecting one of the most important industries of this country, namely, the fishing industry, and more particularly a very important branch of it carried on in Prince Edward Island-the lobster fisheries. Early in April I received a communication from some people at the eastern end of Prince Edward Island, accompanied by a petition signed by ten or fifteen of the most important business people in King's county, protesting against certain abuses of the lobster regulations that had taken place during the

last two years. I read a copy of the petition which was forwarded.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Does the bon. gentleman intend to move the adjournment ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: If necessary I shall do so. The matter is of such importance that I thought possibly the motion would not be necessary.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It may lead to debate and it would be more in order for the hon. gentleman to make a motion.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I shall do so. This is the petition :
Souris, April 11th, 1904.
Hon. Raymond Prgfontaine,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-The undersigned lobster packers of Prince Edward Island wish to call your attention to the following abuse of the granting of licenses for packing lobsters on Prince Edward Island
We were given to understand that, acting under an Order in Council passed some time since, no more fishing licenses would he granted upon Prince Edward Island.
Last season, through the influence of Mr. J. J Hughes, M.P., for this county, a fishing license for packing lobsters was granted to Mr. McEachern, of Black Bush, thereby opening a new factory between that of Mr. A. D. Mc-Isaac and Messrs. Matthew and McLean-.
This season we understand that Mr. Hughes has gone into partnership with Mr. John Ryan, of Priest Pond, and is securing for him another license for packing lobsters between Matthew's and McLean's factory and Donald Leslie's, Campbell's Cove.
We consider this action on the part of the department very unfair, and we should either have licenses for every person that asked for them for packing lobsters, or else the Order in Council should be adhered to.
Before these latter licenses were granted, there were five factories from Black Bush to East Point in a distance of eighteen miles, and if these two factories are allowed to run. it will mean seven factories in a distance of eighteen miles on a straight shore.
We trust, therefore, that your department will see fit not to grant any license to Mr. Ryan, and that the license of Mr. McEachern will be cancelled, otherwise that all fishermen applying for licenses for packing shall he granted to them.
We remain, truly yours,
Location Factories- East Point.
Bayfield & North Lake Campbell's Cove,
Bay Fortune, Annandale,
St. Peter's Harbour, Black Bush, Georgetown, Georgetown,
C. H. S. STERNS. .MATTHEW & McLEAN, DONALD. C. LESLIE, JAS. W. DINGWELL, EDWIN McFARLANE. H,D. McEWBN,



ANGUS D. McISAAC.


[Stage Direction]
This petition is signed irrespective of party allegiance. A number of those who signed it are strong supporters of the
present administration. It is simply a protest, as it says, against an Order in Council, but I afterwards found there was no Order in Council, but that the government was simply following out certain lines of policy respecting this industry. The parties who forwarded this petition thought the matter of such grave importance to the- lobster industry that they wired me that they were prepared to present the petition.in person if that were necessary. I immediately communicated with the department, and received the following letter from the deputy minister :
Ottawa, April 15th, 1904.
Sir,-In reply to your letter of to-day's date, addressed to Mr. Venning, I have much pleasure in inclosing copy of the lobster fishery regulations at present in force in the Dominion.
Touching your inquiry with regard to the establishment of new caneries, I may say that owing to the ever increasing number of lobster canneries along the Atlantic shores of Canada, it has been found necessary, in the interest of fishermen as well as of the fishery, to curtail as much as possible the issue of new licenses, particularly in localities where the number of lobster canneries has reached the maximum of what the fishery will stand, and with this end in view, the department has adopted the policy of refusing applications for new canneries, and in this connection, applications for licenses to reopen canneries which have not been operated for period of two years, are regarded as additional ones.
I am, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) F. GOURDEAU, Deputy ^Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
A. A. Lefurgey, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons.
I was not quite satisfied and thought it my duty to push the matter further. The deputy minister stated that when they thought there were a sufficient number of lobster canneries in operation along a certain line of the coast it was the policy of the government not to grant new applications. I had a map of the district made, and found that within a space of souse twenty miles there were seven factories in operation, and I considered that the establishment of any new factories along that coast was not justified. I therefore interviewed the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and he said he would look into the case and send me a communication. On the 22nd April I received the following communication from the minister :
Office of -the Minister of Marine and Fisheries of Canada,
Ottawa, April 22nd, 1904. gir>-in view of the policy of the deportment to prevent as much as possible an undue increase in the number of lobster canneries on the Atlantic coasts, by placing necessary restraint upon -their multiplication, as well in the interests of 'the canners themselves as in that of the preservation of the fishery, which could
[Stage Direction]
not but inure to the benefit of the fishermen, it became necessary to adopt measures to that and in carrying out a careful administranor. of provident rules and regulations in this regard.
It was therefore decided to limit the licenses where it was regarded that the number reasonably allowable, compatible with profitable results and rational protection, had been reached, hence, it was deemed expedient, under such condition®, to, as much as could be, restrict the business to canneries already established, and incidentally to encourage and turn the attention of the operators to the export of live lobsters, a branch of the industry which has been shown to be capable of producing very much larger returns to all concerned.
In dealing with applications for licenses for lobster canneries, the issue of new licenses has been avoided, unless peculiar and exceptional conditions obtain, and in the category of new applications is included requests for the reopening of disused canneries in which operations have been closed for a period of two years and over.
I believe I need scarcely assure you that in adopting such a policy the department was solely actuated by a desire to so adjust the interests involved as to effect as much protection as possible consistent with a minimum amount of restriction to an established and legitimate industry, but I am sure you will readily appreciate the difficulties which necessarily surround all such attempts, when dealing with fishing interests, which are so susceptible to varying conditions.
To that part of the letter I do not think any one can take exception otherwise than that it leaves too much latitude to ministers, which may lead to abuse, as in this case. That is the definite policy of the government-not brought down in an Order in Council, but just as rigid-and should be just as strictly enforced as an Order in Council would be, to prevent illegal fishing on the Atlantic coast with regard to lobsters. He goes on :
In explanation of the authorization of two new lobster canning licenses on the eastern coast of Prince Edward Island, I may say that after carefully considering urgent representations, I recognized the fact th^t under the circumstances, the fishermen of the particular locality, were placed at a great disadvantage by reason of a practical monopoly by lobster packers, who fixed the prices to be paid for the lobsters and compelled the fishermen to supply them on their terms.
The fishermen then appealed for authority to pack the lobsters actually caught by them, as a remedy against being coerced to dispose of them at the packers' own prices, and with some reluctance, in the light of the general policy above outlined, I consented to grant such relief ; but only on condition that they should organize themselves into a proper company, satisfactory to the department, for such specific purpose, when two licenses, and two only would issue.
The effect of this concession, you will observe, in no way operates to increase the number of lobsters actually taken in the locality, nor does it increase the number actually packed there ; but merely enables certain fishermen to themselves put up their own catch, instead of selling it to the packers, on terms dictated by the purchasers.	-
Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Hence, as the primary object of the regulations is to conserve the lobster fishery for all parties concerned, it would seem that in this special case, the interest of the fishermen have been accommodated without involving any unnecessary increase to the packing or catching power of the canneries or fishermen of the district.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) R. A. PREFONTAINE.
A. A. Lefurgey, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons.
This was the communication I received from the Minister of Marine, and as I Was not satisfied that the hon. minister had made out a case justifying such a departure from an avowed policy, and as I had been down to Prince Edward Island and made some inquiry into the matter, I was obliged to put several questions on the order paper. On April 28th, I put certain questions to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on this subject :
1.	Have any new licenses been granted for the establishment of any new lobster canneries in Prince Edward Island, other than the two mentioned in an official letter of the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, dated April 22nd, 1904 ?
To this the minister answered, * No. '
2.	If so, what is the location of the same, and the names of the persons to whom granted ?
Answered above.
3.	What applications have been received for reopening of the canneries closed for two years, and the names and locations of same ?
3.	William Moore, Wood Islands ; William Sudsbury, Sea View ; William Adams, Sea View ; John T. McKay, Sea View ; Arnold Malone, Miseouehe.
I knew of several of these cases, these being men wdio had been engaged in the business of lobster packing. I knew their applications had been in, and they had been endeavouring for some time to reopen canneries that had been running before. But it was evident from the answer of the minister that these men, who had been engaged in the business of lobster packing and whose livelihood depended on the business, had not been allowed to reopen in these places even though the lobster packers there were not within twenty-five per cent of what they were along the eastern shore of King's county, where they had granted two new licenses.
4.	Have any been granted ; and if so, what are the names and localities ? If not, is it the intention of the government to reopen any of these ?
4. No license have been issued for any of the canneries referred to in the answer to question No. 3.	.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I considered in view of the knowledge I already had of these cases, and of the knowledge I gained on my trip to Prince Edward Island a month ago, that there was a manifest injustice and unfairness in the action of the Minister of Mar-

ine in refusing to open these factories when he allowed the opening of two new lobster factories in the part of the Island to which the petition refers. On the same day I asked another series of questions :
Referring to an official letter from the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, dated April 22nd, 1904, the following statement appears :-* In explanation of the authorization of two new lobster-canning licenses on the eastern coast of Prince Edward Island, I may say that, after carefully considering urgent representations, I recognize the fact that under the circumstances the fishermen of this particular locality were placed at a great disadvantage by reason of a practical monopoly b'y lobster packers, who fixed the prices to be paid for the lobsters, and compelled the fishermen to supply them on their terms.
That was the passage I read from the letter of the Minister of Marine, and I was anxious to know, in view of that appearing as the reason for the establishment of these two lobster factories where he had received his information. Therefore, in view of the expressions 'practical monopoly' and ' urgent representation, ' I asked also :
1.	What is the usual arrangement between lobster fishermen and packers with regard to prices paid and basis of payment ?
2.	Do not packers arrange with fishermen at stated prices for lobsters delivered at factory ?
3.	What was the price paid by the lobster packers in the section referred to in above letter of April 22nd, 1904, during the season the monopoly was complained of ?
4.	What were the average prices paid in other parts of Prince Edward Island during the same season ?
6.	What are the names of the fishermen who applied for authority to pack in this section ?
7.	What are the names of the fishermen who were being coerced to dispose of their lobsters at the packers' own price ?
Now, this was a series of questions right in line with tbe paragraph I quoted from the minister's own letter. Therefore, I could not understand it when the minister replied to these questions that he had no information in the department, although it must have been on the basis of information in the department that he established two new lobster canneries. Yet, in answer to every one of these questions, without some information as to the subject of which neither he nor his department could have acted, he replied that he had no information in the department ;-no information as to the fishermen who complained of this monopoly ; no information as to the prices that were paid In that locality that would create a monopoly ; no information as to the prices paid in other parts of Prince Edward Island that he could compare with the prices paid there that he might judge whether monopoly prices were paid or not. When I was on the Island, I took the trouble to inquire as to the prices paid in the locality complained of and in other places in Prince Edward Island, and I found that the prices
paid to lobster fishermen were practically the same as elsewhere and that the fishermen of that locality were earning as much money in the season as most of the other lobster fishermen on Prince Edward Island. Now, I asked him two other questions :
Where are the two factories mentioned In said letter of April 22nd, 1904, on the eastern coast of Prince Edward Island located or to be located ?
The answer to this was :
Only one license applied for at Priest's Point.
He referred to two in his letter, but one had been established last year and, the petition called for the cancelling of that license. The last question was :
What are the names of the parties to whom said two licenses mentioned in said letter of April 22nd, 1904, were or are to be granted ?
And the answer was :
One license to Hughes & Ryan.
In face of the minister's letter that there was a monopoly among the lobster packers in that section of the country, and that the minister with great reluctance was departing from the avowed policy of the government not to establish any new factories nor to reopen any old ones, and In view of his words that he was granting these licenses to open two new factories only on the application of a certain number of fishermen formed into a company to carry on this fishery, it seems strange to find a license granted to a supporter of the government in this House. The minister was not justified in allowflig political influences to prevail or to prostitute the avowed policy of the government in relation to the lobster fishery in Prince Edward Island. I may say that the lobster fishery of Prince Edward Island, as along almost the whole Atlantic coast-in contradistinction to most of the other fisheries in Canada has not been progressing ; and the utmost care must be exercised in carrying out any policy that the government sees fit to adopt with regard to that fishery. A commission has been appointed and has been working on the problem of protecting the lobster fisheries for some years. In view of this serious state of affairs in the lobster business in Prince Edward Island, it seems clear that there has been a grave violation of the policy of the government, and, as I have pointed out, the minister has not seen fit to justifiy his case-for he declared that he had no information in the department that there was a monopoly existing. Therefore, he has clearly not justified his action in allowing an hon. member of this House to use his position to secure a license for himself in a locality which was already well supplied with lobster canneries, and which I can show, from Information I have gained,
4GT5

was not suffering from a monopoly, but in which the fishermen were being treated as well as anywhere else in Prince Edward Island. No complaint has been made of any of the lobster packers named in this petition, and those who signed the petition are employing the same number of men right along, and the hon. minister in putting for* ward such a plea as he did in the last part of his letter, in saying that the establishment of another factory would not tend to increase the number of lobsters caught and cause the employment of any more men along that shore is an absolute absurdity, because these same people are employing the same number of hands in that locality as they employed regularly for a number of years past, and the other factory is just filling in by an addition of five to eight boats a factory. The minister will see that the principle laid down in his department is violated by an action which, upon the face of it, bears the impress of a political favour to a member of this House, and he is putting the fishermen in that locality in a worse position than they were before, because all of this ground had to be allotted again amongst an added number of fishermen. The department by the establishment of two new factories, along a shore line where there were already sufficient, has cut off the catch of the men, whom he professes to be looking after.
From the information I have gained I find that from Cow River to East Point there were six factories almost evenly distributed, and that in all these factories so far as I can learn the prices to be paid to fishermen were arranged between the fishermen and the packers early in the season before any fishing commenced, so that the fishermen always knew the price they were to receive before they put their hands to a trap, and if they were not satisfied with the price they always had the option, and had plenty of "time to make arrangements with other packers in any other part of Prince Edward Island.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES.: Will the hon. gentleman tell me the prices paid in that locality ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I am coming to that if my hon. friend will wait. As regards the statement that the fishermen ever asked for permission to pack their own lobsters, and that tnis permission was to be granted by the establishment of a proper company satisfactory to the government, the facts are that Mr. Hughes, M.P., formed a partnership with Mr. John Ryan, of Priest Pond, and this company is now employing four-boats to fish the ground formerly occupied by one. They have now in this locality three factories all running full blast on the ground formerly occupied by one, so you can readily understand that the protection meant to be given to the fishermen of the locality was very poorly afforded when the Min-Mr. LEFURGEY.
ister of Marine and Fisheries allowad two factories to be established on the ground formerly occupied by one. I asked several questions of different lobster packers in tlie locality as to whether any complaints had been made to them at any time during the past four or five years. They said that they had been packing lobsters for some 25 years past, and during all that time any fisherman or any one else was perfectly free under the Conservative government to establish as many factories as they pleased, but in all that time not one of their fishermen ever thought of establishing a factory. Under me Conservative policy of allowing any one to establish factories none of these fishermen wanted to establish factories. The number of factories then varied as the catch varied during different seasons. They also say that these fishermen had been with them during almost the whole period they had been operating along this coast. The coast line, they say, is fairly straight, and they have always divided the ground fished by the boats of different factories as defined by land marks, each fisherman operating on his own section exclusively and no one else being allowed to hinder 'him. I also inquired about this Mr. Ryan and what he had been doing. I found that he had been employed by one of the firms along this shore, I think Matthew & McLean, for quite a long time, and up to the very time he left their employment to go into partnership with J. J. Hughes, he had made no complaint to them about the price he was being paid by the people with whom he was employed. The price that has been paid along that coast has been $1.10 per 100 pounds for the fish, boarding the fishermen during the day-time, that is two meals per day, finding the traps, boats and everything that they require, giving each man as well, enough salt to salt his herring for bait and at the factories on the south side the fishermen earn from $2.50 to $2.75 per hundred pounds, the fishermen finding everything including traps, boats, &c. I wish to point out to the members of this House that the fishermen under these prices were making as much money as the average fisherman throughout Prince Edward Island. They were making from $150 to $170 per year and made more per man clear in each season by these arrangements, reserving so much ground for each 300 traps and allowing them to draw lots for positions.
I have given the House all the information I could get. I could get no more information from the Department of Marine and Fisheries than I have presented to the House and I am perfectly satisfied to leave it to the intelligence of the hon. the First Minister and the other members of this House whether the Minister of Marine, in his statement of the case as I have fairly presented it to the House, was justified in de-

parting from the avowed policy of protecting the lobster fisheries of Prince Edward Island, and in apparently using the Department of Marine and Fisheries in ordei; to satisfy a political supporter of the party opposite. This is not the only department of the government which is being misused for the purpose of satisfying political friends.
We had an? instance, only the other day where a department of the government, the Militia Department, which, possibly more than any other should be kept free from political partisanship, was most grossly misused by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), who had no connection wit'll that department, and wTho should, therefore, have not interfered with it at all. Now, we have this case in connection with the department of the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who, while professing to have an established policy and to carry it out for the protection of the fisheries, has been guilty of almost as gross an abuse as that of which the hon. Minister of Agriculture has been guilty in connection with the Department of Militia and Defence. I want to say that if it is the policy of this government that no new cannery shall be established along the Atlantic coast or along the shores of Prince Edward Island, and that no old factories shall be reopened, we want the same treatment meted out to every private individual in Prince Edward Island, who wants to undertake the establishment of a cannery along these shores and to engage in the lobster fishery. In view of the fact that in this case an important departure from the avowed policy of the government has been made, that the name of an hon. member of this House is coupled with it and that throughout the length and breadth of the land for the past three or four seasons all applications for the privilege of establishing new canneries and reopening old ones have been disregarded it seems to me that this is a plain case of prostituting the policy of the department in favour of political partisans. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.


James Joseph Hughes: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefoutaine) is not present perhaps a wprd of explanation from me in regard to this matter may not be out of place. The hon. member for Prince (Mr. Lefurgey) is in the habit of taking up questions in this House that he does not very well understand ; in fact, I am inclined to think that if he only spoke upon the questions that he did understand he would not say so much. This is really a small matter and I am surprised that my hon. friend should have seen fit to bring it up in this House. However, as my name has been mentioned in connection with it I deem it my duty to give some explanation. In regard to the question as to whether or not 149
ai practical monopoly in the lobster canning business existed on this part of the coast I make this statement and it is a statement of fact: From a place called Black Bush, .on the north side of the island, to Souris, on the south side of the island, a distance of between forty and fifty miles. N


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Black Bush to Souris or to East Point ?


James Joseph Hughes: Black Bush to Souris and around East Point. There were just two men interested in the canning business in that vicinity, namely, John McLean, a gentleman who will probably be my opponent in the next election, who has been nominated for that position, and his brother-in-law, Charles /Sterns. Along that particular piece of coast some few years ago there were several factories. These people whose names I have mentioned had factories there. Factories were also owned by Messrs. Fred. Morrow, C. C. Carlton and Dennis Murphy. These factories were closed and in consequence of their closure, due to the regulation of the department against granting any licenses, these two men, the brothers-in-law, had about forty miles of coast line under their own operation. There was just one man, Joseph Pope, who had a small factory that he was running on his own account and these gentlemen were so determined to allow nobody to fish but themselves that they went opposite to his factory and set their traps. To show how the fishermen were complaining, the fishermen in that locality, a few years ago, knowing that they were getting unreasonably small profits for their industry, for the hard labour they were performing, organized a delegation which came to Souris, waited upon Mr. John McLean and asked him to allow them to go into' partnership with him in the business. They catching the fish and doing nearly all the labour wished to participate to some extent in the profits of the business. They thought it would be better for^ him as well as for themselves because under ordinary circumstances the fishermen would take a greater interest in their work and have a greater interest in preserving the property. The answer of Mr. McLean to the delegation, according to my information from the fishermen themselves, was that if they were not satisfied with their position he could get other men to take their places. I wonder if, the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), who is opposed to monopolies and all that kind of thing and who is a friend of the workingman, would approve of that kind of thing.


Mr. CLARKE.: I was not paying much attention to the hon. gentleman, but I think it is a pretty fishy transaction.


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, it is a fishy transaction on the part of my political opponents. According to the statement made



by my bon. friend from Prince, the price paid in that particular locality per 100 pounds was $1.10. That is correct, but according to my information the fishermen had to board themselves although salt and bait were provided. According to my information, from the fishermen the ordinary price paiS in other localities was from $1.50 to $1.75 per 100 pounds, the men having their board provided for them.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How about the salt ?


James Joseph Hughes: My hon. friend seems to think this is a great joke.


Edward Frederick Clarke: No, no.


James Joseph Hughes: Oh, yes, my hon. friend does. Under these circumstances the fishermen came to me and asked me if it was possible to get them a license to can their own catch of fish. I certainly approved of the proposition and tried to comply with the request. I think that if there are any men who ought to profit by this industry they are the men along that coast who do the labour, the men who have to do the actual work, rather than the merchants who live at other places and who have other means of making a living. 1 make that statement. I do not know whether my hon. friend opposite will agree with and endorse it or not. It is my opinion, at all events and it is the opinion of the fishermen in that locality as my hon. friend and my opponent will probably find out. I got a license under these circumstances for the McEacherns and McDonalds who formed a company last year and went into business on their own account. These men made twice as much money out of the business when they were canning for themselves as they had made before when .they were fishing and allowing other people to can their lobsters. This year Ryan, to whom my hon. friend refers, and McPhee were going to organize another company and they applied for a license to can their fish.
My esteemed friend, the gentleman who will probably be my opponent in the nest election and who has a practical monopoly of that coast line, prevailed upon McPhee to withdraw from the business and not go into partnership with Ryan. Under these circumstances Ryan was not able to proceed with the business alone, and he came to me and I agreed to go into partnership with him rather than that it should fall through. That is my connection with the matter, and I am not ashamed of it. I am not ashamed to go before the fishermen of Prince Edward Island, and the fishermen of the eastern part of King's county and explain the transaction. I understand from Ryan that he is doing well, and if there are some four boats fishing on the ground where only one fished before, he must be fishing a larger area. To show you how the friends of the hon. gentleman opposite have tried to establish a monopoly on this part of the coast Mr. J. J. HUGHES.
line, I may say that when Ryan was prepared to put out his lobster traps and rope opposite his own cannery last spring ; Mr. John McLean, who has prompted my hon. friend (Mr. Lefurgey) to bring up this question and who has given him all the information which he possesses-although he does not very well understand it yet-


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I beg thfe hon. gentleman's pardon. Mr. John Maclean did not give me the information which I possess. I took particular care to get the information from reliable men from Souris and Charlottetown ; people that the hon. gentleman knows well possibly, and they gave me the information when I was down myself.


James Joseph Hughes: I understand the question very well. Mr. McLean sent a large party of men to prevent Ryan by force from putting out his traps opposite his own factory, and Ryan was obliged to go some distance away from his own factory, because he could not raise a mob to protect him.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Where were all these oppressed fishermen that they did not flock to his assistance ?


James Joseph Hughes: Now then with regard to this petition which my hon. friend presented ; I was not present at the moment, and I do not know whether he read all the names or not.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I read all the names.


James Joseph Hughes: Was the name A. D. Mclsaac on it ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Yes. A. D. Mclsaac was on it.


James Joseph Hughes: Well, A. D. Mclsaac told me that his name was forged to that petition, and that he felt like taking proper steps to bring the parties who forged his name to justice. I believe the name of D. C. Leslie is on that petition ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I do not recollect just now.


James Joseph Hughes: Well, D. C. Leslie did not write his name ; I know his handwriting and it is not his handwriting. I cannot say anything as to the other names, but these two I know of. Mr. Mclsaac who is an honest respectable man gave me that information, and that will show you what value ought be attached to the petition and to the manner of men these are who would send this petition here. It would show the kind of men they are to use my hon. friend (Mr. Lefurgey) to present such a document into this House. So far as this fishery regulation is concerned I do not know that I altogether approve of it. In my opinion it is weak in this respect : that it limits the number of factories that may be established along the coast line, but does not limit the number of traps that may be

put in the water, and it is the traps that catch the fish and not the factories. The limitation of the number of factories without limiting the number of traps that can be put in the water would not preserve the industry. The two gentlemen who had a practical monopoly of that coast line were enabled under the present regulations to put down as many traps as they wished and consequently the issuing of these licenses to the fishermen themselves does not injure the industry. Now, these are the facts of the case, and again I regret that my hon. friend from Prince (Mr. Lefurgey) brought the matter before the House. I do not think he has gained anything by it ; I do not think his friends have gained anything and I leave the matter there, for the present.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I do not think my hon. friend from East Prince (Mr. Lefurgey) brought the matter before the House for the purpose of gaining anything politically from it. He presented the matter to parliament for the reason that it concerns the public interest. As I understand it, certain regulations were made by the department limiting the number of lobster factories along the coast, and then certain exceptions were made for this locality which do not seem to have been applied throughout the island generally. Of course, it was very kind of my hon. friend (Mr. J. J. Hughes), if he has gone into this matter for motives of pure philanthropy, and I am sure we all rejoice to hear that Ryan is doing well, because if Ryan does well the hon. member (Mr. J. J. Hughes) will do well also. But, this would not seem to exactly coincide with the policy laid down in the letter from the minister. The minister says that the exceptions have been made in the case of fishermen desiring to catch lobsters, so that they may not be obliged to work for those who are engaged in the business of canning ; and he suggests that the fishermen who desire to put up the lobsters should form themselves into an association. One would have thought that if there had been a large number of oppressed fishermen, they would have formed themselves into a company as directed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, but that does not seem to have been done. The majority of fishermen seem to be going on as they were before. I gather that one firm was formed last year consisting of Mr. Mc-Eaehern


James Joseph Hughes: There are several McEacherns.


Robert Laird Borden: At all events, there was one firm formed last year consisting of two fishermen, but this year only one of the oppressed fishermen on that coast was so dissatisfied with his own condition that he went into the business and my hon. friend from King's (Mr. J. J. Hughes) very kindly came to his relief and went into the partnership with him. That would hardly seem to indicate the distressful conditions 149J
of affairs which my hon. friend (Mr. J. J. Hughes) described to the House. Of course I know nothing about the signatures to that petition, but it is said to be signed by respectable men ; men who are known in the community in which they reside as reliable men ; men whose word is to be depended upon; and my hon. friend from King's will see that if this petition really has been signed, the statements it contains would amply justify my hon. friend from Prince (Mr. Lefurgey) in bringing in to the attention of the House. In the first place, they refer to the granting of licenses in a manner which amounts to an abuse, and then they go on to say that there was a regulation of the department that no more fishing licenses would be granted upon Prince Edward Island.


James Joseph Hughes: My hon. friend will notice that there is not one fisherman's name on that petition ; they are canners.


Robert Laird Borden: I don't attach very much importance to that either one way or the other if they are respectably men.


James Joseph Hughes: Their interests are the other way.


Robert Laird Borden: What these men set out, is that certain regulations have been made but have not been adhered to, and that the departure from these regulations can only be described as an abuse. I do not pretend to be as familiar with the facts as myjhon. friend (Mr. J. J. Hughes) I am merely drawing his attention to this for the purpose of showing that there really is something before the House for discussion. Then the petition continues :
Last season through the influence of Mr. J. J. Hughes, M.P., for this county, a fishing license for packing lobsters was granted to Mr. Mc-Eachern, of Black B-ush, thereby opening a new factory between that of Mr. A. D. Mclsaac and Messrs. Matthew and McLean.
This season we understand that Mr. Hughes has gone into partnership w!ith M!r. John Ryan, of Priest Pond, and is securing for another license for packing lobsters between Matthew & McLean's factory and Donald Leslie's, Campbell's Cove.
We consider this action on the part of the department very unfair, and we should either have licenses for every person that asks for them for packing lobsters, or else the Order in Council should be adhered to.
The point of the petition, as I understand it, is that there should be regulations and that these regulations should be adhered to, or else depart from the regulations altogether and leave the field open to every one. You should not have regulations which are broken by means of influence such as that described in the petition. The petition continues as follows :
Before these latter licenses were granted, there were five factories from Black Bush to East Point in a distance of eighteen miles, and

if these itwo factories are allowed to run, it will mean seven factories in a distance of eighteen miles on a straight shore.
We trust therefore that your department will see fit not to grant any license to Mr. Ryan, and that the license of Mr. McEachern will be cancelled-
That Is one alternative. That alternative contemplates an adherence to the regulations of the department. The other alternative is certainly a fair one, and it is as follows :
-otherwise that all fishermen applying for license for packing lobsters shall be granted.
My hon. friend cannot see anything very unfair in the two alternatives; they are perfectly plain and straightforward, and I should think in the public interest. This petition has been signed by men who purport to be lobster packers ; Mr. C. H. S. Sterns, Messrs. Matthew & McLean, Mr. Donald C. Leslie-my hon. friend, X think calls in question his signature.


James Joseph Hughes: It is not his handwriting.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not make any difference whether it is his handwriting or not. If he authorized any one else to write his name, it is the same as if he wrote it himself. The other names are : Mr. James W. Dingwell, Mr. Edwin Mc-Farlane, Mr. H. D. McEwen, Mr. Angus D. Mclsaac, Messrs. A. A. McDonald Bros., Mr. W. W. Jenkins. While not professing to have a very exact knowledge of the facts or the conditions with reference to the lobster fisheries in Prince Edward Island, I think, under the circumstances which have been disclosed by my hon. friend from East Prince, he was amply justified in bringing this matter before the House.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I would like the hon. member for King's to understand that I had no personal olrject in bringing this matter up. I do not bring matters up in the House from personal motives. The fact that the hon. member's name is unfavourably connected with a matter of so much importance to the fishing industry of Prince Edward Island is his own misfortune, and not my fault. The petition was sent to me, and I was asked to look into the matter and bring it up in this House. I have only done what the hon. member would himself do if his constituents sent him material that contained charges of such, a nature as this one. I am glad that the hon. member feels the seriousness of the position he has got himself into, and I think hon. members will agree with me that in presenting this case to the House. I did it fairly and squarely, upon the information which I had from the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the information which I gained with regard to the industry from those engaged in it in Prince Edward Island. If the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries has not given us Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
information that would justify his departure from an avowed policy, the position of the hon. member for King's is that much more serious. The hon. member for King's has apparently put himself in the position that the hon. Minister of Agriculture is in with regard to Lord Dundonald's case. He is acting for the department to his own benefit. Instead of the department acting, it is delegating its powers to people who have no right to act. and who are very likely to act from motives that are not just in line with the policy of the government. As the Minister of Agriculture made a fatal mistake in introducing politics into militia appointments, so the Minister of Marine and Fisheries had apparently made Mr. Hughes, the member for King's, his-deputy in the information he obtained in regard to this matter. The charge certainly comes home to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and it is his duty to clear himself. He has not the information in the department, and for that reason I think his action in this case was unjustified. My statements with regard to the prices paid for lobsters and the wages paid to the men were got from reliable men engaged in the fishing industry, and I gave them exactly as I got them from those people. The fact that only one fisherman is engaged in packing, of all those who were complaining of the monopoly in that part of the island, is sufficient to justify me in bringing the matter up ; and the fact that the hon. member for King's got the minister in this position, and went into partnership with one fisherman, is no justification for claiming a monopoly for the sole purpose of benefiting Mr. J. J. Hughes, M.P.



TORONTO HARBOUR.

Edward Frederick Clarke: I desire to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the unsatisfactory condition of the equipment existing in connection with the navigation of Lake Ontario near Toronto harbour. The complaint made by mariners is that they find it very difficult, especially in foggy weather, to make the harbour at the eastern entrance because of the insufficiency of the appliances there. I have received a letter from Mr. Church, the solicitor of the Lake Ontario Navigation Company, inclosing clippings from the papers of Friday last, describing the difficulties the mariners have .to contend with. These difficulties were accentuated during two or three days of last week when there was a great deal of foggy weather. The harbour could have been made if there had been sufficient fog signals and other appliances. With the permission of the House I will read a few lines taken from the * World ' of Friday last :	.
The fog nuisance, although somewhat abated yeeio:day, w-as still sufficiently in evidence to make tiouble. The steamer ' Argyle ' was the vicUtu yesterday. With a crowd of 500 on hoard, being an excursion of the Presbyterian

Church of Cobourg, she was compelled to lie for aeout forty-five minutes within half a mile of the eastern gap, there being no sound from the bell located there to indicate her bearings. It is not stretching facts to say that practically the sole topic among marine men is the absurdly inefficient equipment for giving warning during fog.
The Richelieu and Ontario, St. Catharines, and Niagara Navigation Companies are all interested in this matter, and I would ask the Prime Minister to see that steps are taken to implement the apparatus, which is insufficient at present.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: What do they complain of-the insufficiency of the signals or the insufficiency of the alarm ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The insufficiency of the alarm.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.

Mr. T. CHASE CASGRAIN.: On the 30th of May last, an order of the House was passed for copies of correspondence in relation to the construction or improvement of the landing at Beaton, B.C., and also for copies of the letters of resignation of certain officers of the 9th regiment on the same day. These returns are not down yet. and I shall pass the list over to the right bon. gentleman.



LORD DUNDONALD'S SPEECH.

Robert Laird Borden: I would draw the attention of the right hon. gentleman to certain correspondence between the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Col. Smart us well as Col. Whitley, which was referred to on Friday last by the hon. minister. That correspondence, I would suggest, should be laid on the table. We should also have any departmental correspondence on the same subject, some of which has been referred to and the contents stated to the House. It would be desirable that all this should be placed before the House. Two gazettes have also been referred to and their contents commented upon. We should have them as well, and I would suggest that all other documents bearing upon the incident, in connection with which these documents were mentioned, should also be laid on the table. The government should inform the House whether or not it was understood by the colleagues of the Minister of Agriculture that the name of Dr. Pickel had been struck off without the recommendation of the General Officer Commanding and what were the reasons for striking it off. It seems to me only proper that the House should be informed whether or not that fact was brought to the attention of His Excellency when the Order in Council was presented' to him and whether or not he was informed of tl\e reason why that name had been struck out. These are suggestions of mine and it will be for
the government to take what action it may see fit. I make them in view of the duties prescribed in the statutes for the General Officer Commanding ; and I think, having regard to those regulations which have the force of a statute, that this is information which may not unreasonably be demanded by the House in ease there should be any further discussion of the unfortunate incident to which I have referred.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. colleague the Minister of Militia is not in his seat, but I have reason to believe that he is preparing correspondence for the further information of the House.



'ONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 42) respecting the Sprague Falls Manufacturing Company, Limited.-Mr. Henderson.
CEDAR RAPIDS MANUFACTURING AND POWER COMPANY. „
Mahlon K. Cowan: I would like to say that the solicitor who resides in Montreal, after this Bill was reported, made the statement that he did not understand the committee to have adopted the Bill in the form in which it is submitted to the House. In'view of that slight misunderstanding, I would ask that the Bill be referred back to the Private Bills Committee in order to give him an opportunity of being heard.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 80) respecting the West Canadian Collieries, Limited.-Mr. Oliver.
On section 4,
Robert Laird Borden: I do not know whether the attention of the government has been directed to the very comprehensive! powers included in this clause, but they are a little unusual. We have coal mining, smelting, the operation of open hearth steel plants, bridge construction, machine shops, manufacture of the products of coal, farming and stock raising, dealing in shares and securities of other concerns carrying on similar business, construction of houses, churches, schools, hospitals and other buildings-but as that is limited by the clause * for the use and benefit of workmen ' and so on, it may not be objectionable- acquiring real and personal property, easements, hydraulic properties, patent rights, plant, machinery and so on in connection with the works ; manufacture, use and supply of electricity, water, gas and electric, hydraulic compressed air or other power-it may be all right, but it seems rather comprehensive.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: The Bill is rather of an unusual character, because it purports to confer powers upon a company cieated under the English Act, and which remains for the future beyond our legislative control. I confess that when I first looked at it, I thought we were giving this company more extended powers than were provided for in the articles of association. But I have had the Bill examined, and I find that the powers granted are in accordance with the articles of association and are, as I am informed, identical with the powers which the company now possesses.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not quite understand why we need to give the company these powers if it already possesses them under its memorandum and articles of association. It seems inconvenient that we should confer upon this company the same powers conferred upon it by its articles of association, and, at the same time, we expressly stipulate that it shall be enabled to amend its constitution without reference to this parliament and in accordance with the Companies' Act of Great Britain. I have not worked out the effect of this, but it seems to me it might, lead to awkward consequences. I do not know whether my hon. friend from Alberta {Mr. Oliver) who has charge of the Bill has communicated with the promoters on that point, but it seems to me a little dangerous to give to companies differing powers derived from a double source. In my own province of Nova Scotia we have had some companies which were constituted by the Act of the legislature of Nova Scotia and which, when they wanted wider powers, secured charters from the government of Canada. If there is the slightest variation in the powers granted by the two different authorities, it is exceedingly difficult to tell what the precise powers are. I think the promoters should be careful, in their own interest, to see how far this goes. You have perfectly plain sailing if you do not attempt to give powers here that are not contained in the company's memorandums and articles of association. But if you vary from that, you are almost sure to get into trouble.


Mr. LOGAN.: What is done in the case of subsection (f) ?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The words ' and the business of general merchants,' are struck out by the committee.


Hance James Logan: It seems to me that the hon. leader of the opposition is right in suggesting that this is rather dangerous legislation. We are giving powers in this Bill that we are denying every day to Canadian companies-I think there is no doubt about that. It is, in effect, a suggestion to promoters who desire to get larger powers, and cannot get them from this parliament, to become incorporated under the English


Robert Laird Borden: Act, and then, when they come here we merely pass in review, as it were, the powers they have received, giving them by confirmation powers that we would not give in the initiative. Of course, there may be a great deal of this legislation in Canada, but this is a very striking instance of our giving exceedingly broad powers ; and, as the leader of the opposition says it is rather confounding matters to have this joint or confirmatory legislation.


Mr. FOWLER.: It seems to be rather absurd to give to a colliery company power to become a stock-raising concern. We are striking out the words that give them the power of going into the business of general merchants, but it seems to me it would be more reasonable to give them power to do business as merchants than to go into stock-raising, for they might want to do business in connection with carrying on their collieries. I fail to see why they want powers for stock-raising.


Mahlon K. Cowan: They own large areas of land in the western country and to use that land they require these powers.
Mr. FOWLER, I have no doubt they want all that is asked for here, but it does not seem to me in accordance with the rules that have heretofore obtained in this parliament to give a company the very extensive powers that it is proposed to give to this one.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5,
George William Fowler: This is pretty broad. It does not say that these various works shall be only in connection with the company's collieries. It lays it down broadly, and the works enumerated might be works of a general character entirely separate and apart from the object of the company.
On section 14,
Section 18 and such other provisions of the ' Companies Clauses Act ' as may be inconsistent with the provisions of the ' Companies Acts, 1862 to 1890,' of Great Britain, or of any statutes of the imperial parliament in amendment thereof, or in substitution therefor, shall not apply to the company.


Robert Laird Borden: This is a very remarkable clause : it involves the necessity of comparing our Companies Clauses Act with the Companies Clauses Act of Great Britain and with any Acts that may be passed in the future in amendment of that Act by the imperial parliament and of thus ascertaining whether the conditions of the one are consistent with those of the other. It is the most remarkable clause I ever observed in any Bill brought before this parliament. I think the whole Bill ought to receive more careful consideration by the government than it appears to have received.
I have done my duty in calling attention to-

it. I do not believe this Bill in the present form will be in the interest of the country or of the corporation itself. You have some amendments evidently made to its powers as granted under the Companies Act, of Great Britain. I would think tbe best way to deal with a corporation of this kind would be to let it act under its powers as originally created. It can be constituted under the Companies Act of Great Britain with powers to operate a business in this country. Then, if it requires for its undertaking in Canada any powers, such as the expropriation of land, the building of railways, <&c., this parliament might very reasonably afford such powers to it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have not had my attention especially directed to this Bill, and it seems to me that if this were the first departure we should hesitate before going further. I remember, however, that last year we put through a Bill somewhat on the same lines. I would like to suggest to the gentlemen responsible for this Bill the question whether they have considered that under our Companies Act provision is made for the incorporation of foreign companies with all the powers which such companies possess so far as not inconsistent with our own Act. It seems to me that might all have been done under the ordinary Companies Clauses Act without coming before parliament at all, and I quite appreciate that when it comes before parliament it should be dealt with with considerable care. Under the circumstances I would ask that the 'committee rise and report progress so that I may have an opportunity of looking into the matter further.


Robert Laird Borden: I would think that for the construction of a small branch of railway, the power of expropriating land, the erection of a telegraph line, &c., the company might desire some legislation here, and I would not object to giving those powers, but it does not seem to me that the Act has been drawn up on a very scientific or logical basis. It mixes up the powers conferred by this parliament with the original constitution of the company, and then in the very last clause, which we are now considering, it calls upon those who seek to ascertain the powers of the company, to study this statute, the memorandum and articles of the company, the English Companies Act and all amendments to it, the Companies Clauses Act of Canada and to find out if possible from all of these what the powers of the company are. I should think that a good lawyer labouring 8 or 10 hours a day might possibly work out the powers of the company in 10 days or a fortnight.


Mr. WADE.: Say 20 hours a day.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. I am suggesting a very diligent and skilful lawyer, but it might take longer for most of us. Under
these circumstances I would think it as well that those who are promoting the company should have a little care as to the form in which this Bill goes through parliament.


Fletcher Bath Wade: The gentleman who appeared before the Private Bills Committee stated that the members of the company reside I think, in France. They first went to London and sought incorporation, but then they found that would not serve the whole of their purpose, and they wrote to instruct this solicitor to get a charter here. We made a great many suggestions to him as to the manner in which he might proceed but of course he was in the awkward position of not being able to communicate with his clients as they resided at so great a distance. The committee dealt with the Bill in the best manner they could.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: I would like some one to explain to me what that last clause means. Nobody seems to know what it means, and I do not think this parliament should pass a clause of that kind without some explanation being given. Section 14 reads :
Section 18 and any such other provisions of the Companies Clauses Act as may be inconsistent with the provisions of the ' Companies Acts, 1862 to 1890,' of Great Britain, or of any statutes of the imperial parliament in amendment thereof, or in substitution herefor, shall not apply to the company.


Fletcher Bath Wade: The meaning of that was this :	The provision which was submitted
to the committee was that no portion of the Companies' Clauses Act should apply to the promoters of the Bill, wanted their charter to be under the English Companies' Act. There was a good deal of discussion over it and it was framed in such a way as to proride that only such portions of the Canadian Companies' Clauses Act as are not inconsistent with the English Companies' Act, should apply ; so that only the English Companies' Act and the remainder of the Canadian Companies' Clauses Act, if there is any remainder, shall apply to this Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me to bring in any future statutes of the imperial parliament.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, it would.


Fletcher Bath Wade: The head office is in London and. they wanted to carry on their business from London. At least that is what was represented to the committee. It was represented that they were organized under the English Companies' Act and they did not want to be subject to two Companies' Acts. We did not think it made very much difference one way or the other.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I would call the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice to this clause. It seems to me that this parliament should not pass such loose legislation as is proposed by this Bill. Who

is going to interpret the clauses of our Act. compare them with the clauses of the English Companies' Act, 1862 to 1890, and say where they are inconsistent ? Is it going to be liable to the interpretation of the court, and is this company going to get from this parliament powers which are certainly not defined in this Bill ? It seems to me that we are going very far in the matter of private legislation and that the hon. Minister of Justice and government should take some care in seeing that Bills which are passed here in relation to private matters should he such as would be easily interpreted and not require the examination, not only of our own Acts in regard to companies hut also of the English Act.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) must be aware that the Minister of Justice is not responsible for private legislation. There is no principle better understood than that. I have no responsibility for drafting the private Bills that go through this House. Parliament is responsible for that, not the Minister of Justice. I am responsible for the legislation that I introduce into this House. If I were to be made personally responsible for all the private Bills that go through parliament it would be absolutely necessary for me to do nothing else.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I take a wider view of the scope of the duties of my hon. friend. I do not mean to say that he could be held responsible for all the private Bills which go before the private Bills committee, and which come before this House, but, on the other hand I say that he has the general supervision of legislation- both public and private which comes before parliament and if his attention is drawn to any such flagrant mis-use of the powers conferred upon this parliament in regard to private legislation as seems to be included in this Bill, his duty, I respectfully submit, is to see that this legislation is properly curtailed and kept within bounds.


Mr. OLIVER.: Mr. Chairman, as the Bill is standing in my name I would like to say that I have no objection in view of what lias been said by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and the hon. leader of the opposition (Sir. R. L. Borden) to have the Bill reviewed either by the private Bills committee or some other special committee if it is thought necessary. But, I would like to point out that the Bill relates to an existing company, a company having extensive operations both in coal mining and railways, and as I understand the purpose of the Bill it is to combine under one name and under one organization several enterprises which are really the property of the same individuals who constitute this company. I did not follow the discussion very accurately but I would not wish whoever is reviewing the Bill again to think that this is only! a question as between British legislation and


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Canadian legislation. It is not something which is merely a question of law. There is a matter of business to be settled. There is an existing company which has spent a very large amount of money in active coal mining operations and in the building of a short line of railway and the members of the company, having entered upon kindred enterprises in the vicinity, now desire to have all these enterprises amalgamated under one name and have a single set of powers.


Peter Macdonald: The Minister of Justice moves that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Frank Oliver: What is the suggestion of the hon. Minister of Justice in reference to that ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would like to have a chance to look over this Bill not having seen it except hurriedly at the present time, and especially in respect to the amendments.
I am. perhaps, somewhat slow of comprehension, and I like an opportunity of considering anything before expressing my opinion about it. I would like to have these amendments before me so that I may consider them. I do not agree with the view which apparently obtains in this House that a company ought to be granted for a special purpose only. I. think that incorporation ought to be granted to companies for any purpose for which parliament wishes to confer powers on them. I fail to understand the reason of the rule which has apparently been adopted up to the present time, but I would not endeavoui; to press my personal view as against the view of the House upon that point.


Frank Oliver: Is it understood that when the committee rises and reports progress, the hon. Minister of Justice shall take the responsibility of reviewing the Bill ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


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

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 79) to incorporate the Thompson River Improvement Company.-Mr. Morrison.
On section 12,
Mr. GALLIHER.: Was this section expunged in the Private Bills Committee V


Mahlon K. Cowan: Yes.


William Alfred Galliher: W'hy ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: Very strong objection was taken by some members of the committee who are familiar with the business of this company, and who are engaged in similar business themselves. We thought the whole matter was covered by section 11, and so clause 12 was stricken out and the tolls

would laave to be submitted to the Governor in Council wbere all parties could be heard.


William Alfred Galliher: Does not the Columbia River Improvement Bill of last year, contain a clause similar to this clause 12 ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: Yes. but we thought that section 11 was all that was required.


William Alfred Galliher: The result is that before tolls are charged by this company they have to go to the Governor in Council and get them approved.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Yes.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Would ' my hon. friend point out where we get jurisdiction at all in this matter ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: That question was debated at considerable length in the committee. My own view was that the jurisdiction was entirely in the province, but the majority thought that as we had been conferring similar powers on other companies we should do so for this company.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am disposed to consider that it is not within our power to pass this Bill.


Mahlon K. Cowan: That is the view I held at first.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I cannot see anything in the Bill which shows that it has reference exclusively to navigable waters. It is not because we passed the Columbia River Bill yast year that we should pursue the same course this year. When we were passing that Bill last year, it occurred [DOT] to me that we were going beyond our powers.


George William Fowler: This river is navigable.


Charles Fitzpatrick: How far is it navigable ?


George William Fowler: For nearly two hundred miles.


Fletcher Bath Wade: We held that it was a navigable river, and that it was necessary to come to this parliament. The only question in my mind was as to whether they should not go to the provincial parliament as well.


Robert Laird Borden: Was any information given to the committee as to whether this river is navigable at the point mentioned in the Bill ?


George William Fowler: This river is navigable for nearly two hundred miles of its length. The Kamloops lake is navigable; the town of Kamloops is situated at the confluence of the North Thompson and South Thompson rivers. And the North Thompson is navigable for quite two hundred miles. It was necessary to come here and get these rights, and I may say that an application has also been made to the provincial legislature. 1


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is a clause here which gives power to blast rocks and remove shoals and other impediments. It is quite clear that it has reference to some part of the river that is not navigable.


Mahlon K. Cowan: In order to place the position of the committee before the House, I wish to say that the majority of the committee were firmly of the opinion that this parliament did not have exclusive jurisdiction. The Bill deals with tributaries and with branches which are not navigable. We felt that we did not have the right to give power to attach the booms to the shore ; and that that was entirely within the jurisdiction of the province.


George William Fowler: I know of my own knowledge that the river is navigable for at least two hundred miles, and that steamers ply on it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It turns on a question of fact.


George William Fowler: That is a matter of fact. Steamers in which I am interested have ascended the river for one hundred and fifty miles from where It joins the South Thompson up towards its source, and therefore it was necessary'to come to this parliament. An application has been made to the provincial parliament as well.


Robert Laird Borden: Very likely it is a case in which the complete carrying out of the undertaking would involve legislation from this parliament, as well as from the provincial parliament.


George William Fowler: I think so.


Fletcher Bath Wade: We discussed that point, and I was of that opinion ; but it seemed to me that if the parliament of Canada had any jurisdiction at all in consequence of this being a work which would obstruct navigation, that then the attaching of booms to the shores would be a purely incidental matter and this parliament would have jurisdiction.


Robert Laird Borden: I would doubt that a little.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) can take his Bill and the risk with it.
Bill reported, read a third time and passed.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. RALPH SMITH asked :: 1.	In the contract establishing steamboat services on the Pacific and Atlantic oceans between Canada and Mexico, is it the intention of the government to insert therein any provisions retaining to the government control over the freight and passenger rates ? If so, what will be the nature of such provision ?

2.	If there is to be no such provision, is it to be left to the contracting company to charge such rates as it chooses ?
3.	What precaution, if any, is to be taken to prevent the companies combining with other companies (by land or water), so as to prevent the country, in return for the subsidy, obtaining the benefit of competitive or reduced rates ?


Rt. Hon. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT (Minister of Trade and Commerce).: A clause will be inserted in the contract my bon. friend refers to, giving tbe government control over the rates. That answer applies to questions 2 and 3 as well.


GEOGRAPHY OP CANADA.
Mr. GASGRAIN asked :: 1.	At what date was the book ' Geography of the Dominion of Canada ' issued by the Department of the Interior ?
2.	Where is the said book distributed ?
3.	If it is distributed abroad, in what countries ?
4.	How many copies have been issued and distributed ?
5.	Is it distributed to the schools in Canada; and if so, what schools ?
6.	Has the said book been translated into French ?


Right Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: 1.	April the 8th, 1904.
2.	In the United States, Great Britain and Canada.
3.	Great Britain and the United States.
4.	100,000 copies.
5.	Copies are sent to school children in Canada on their applying for them. There has been no general distribution to the schools.
6.	Yes. So soon as the French edition is available, it is intended to extend the circulation to France.



THE FISHING BOUNTIES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEFURGEY-by Mr. Hackett-asked:
1.	On what principle are bounties paid to fishermen in the maritime provinces.?
2.	Why are not fishermen engaged in the lobster fishery allowed to participate in the bounty, as well as those employed in other branches of this industry ?
Right Hon.   S@: The bounties are distributed in accordance with the statute passed in that behalf.



SOUTH AFRICAN WAR PENSIONS.

Mr. ANDREW BRODER moved.: For copies of all correspondence between the government, and any person, or persons, in reference to the granting of pensions to those of the Canadian South African contingents who were wounded or suffered any disability in such service.


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: He said : Mr. Speaker,*1 wish, if possible to find out whether or not the government has settle^ on any policy in reference to these men. Those who have suffered disability are in receipt of small pensions from the British government; but that pension is altogether inadequate for their maintenance, particularly in the cases of serious disability. I do not wish in any sense to detract from the claim set up on behalf of any man who participated in that war when the whole world was jealously watching every movement of England and wishing the success of her enemy's arms. The men,who went out from Canada to defend the empire on that occasion did a great deal for the furtherance of Canadian interests, not only in England, but in other countries. The benefit which Canada derived and is still deriving from the efforts of those men, voluntarily undertaken, and the personal sacrifices they made, should call forth the gratitude of the Canadian people, especially to those who suffered at the hands of the enemy. In my own county there is a young man who joined the ranks and went to South Africa, and became totally disabled by losing the sight of both eyes. I need not inform this House that I refer to Trooper Mulloy. Wherever the English language is spoken, the name of Trooper Mulloy is known ; and if it is not the general policy of this government to do something for every one who suffered a disability, there certainly should be some definite policy with regard to him. He receives at the hands of the British government 65 cents per day. He is a young man of more than ordinary ability. He is a young man who previous to his disability, was inspired with an ambition to make his mark in the world, and he is now going to college under great difficulties, having to employ assistance in his work in order to place himself in a position to make some sort of livelihood. I have known his family for many years, and they are a family whom every man in this House would respect if he knew them. Out of respect for the family I do not wish to refer to their financial position. I can say this, however, that there was a time when they were very well off, being well-to-do farmers. But circumstances have changed since then, and they are not as well off to-day as they were some years ago ; and, Sir, the responsibility will to some extent rest on this young man of maintaining his aged mother, with whom I think it is his intention to make his home while she remains here. If the government intend to do anything in this matter, it is high time for them to make some announcement of their policy. This young man, I believe, has drawn some $2,000 all told from the patriotic fund, which was subscribed by private citizens some years ago ; but that is not a fund on which the country has a right to throw any individual. The

country's gratitude ought to extend to these individuals. I do not suppose there is a country in the world outside of Canada which would leave these persons in the position in which they are to-day. I do not say that we ought to copy to' the fullest extent the pension policy of the United Stiltes ; but there is this to be said, that no American citizen suffers from having fought for his country's rights without receiving full recognition, no matter where he may live ; and if we are ever to have a full and free Canadian sentiment in this country, we shall have to recognize the claims of men who are willing to step into the ranks and defend the country's interests when trouble is at her doors. It is all very well to discuss the question as to whether or not we have a right to have anything to do with the imperial wars, and all that sort of thing ; but we cannot expect our citizens to stand on the threshold of their country's troubles and discuss who is right and who is wrong before they fight in her interest. If these young men had done that, Canada would never have benefited from their efforts in South Africa. I think this question ought to be put at rest by some announcement from the government to day in reference to what they intend to do. I do not wish to prolong this discussion or to say anything that would offend the sensibilities of any man, but I wish to urge on the government the necessity and advisability of doing something in this instance.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: Last year my hon. friend spoke to me several times during the session privately with reference to this matter, and I informed him that I intended to bring it up some time during the session. At my request he postponed bringing the matter before the House, as I was in hopes that I might be able to give him some answer. I told him on the occasions when we talked it over that the pension list was being prepared by the imperial government, and I thought it wise to postpone consideration of any particular case until we could consider the whole. Unfortunately the matter was brought up by my hon. friend when I was not present, but that was no fault of his. He had postponed it at my request until nearly the end of the session, when I was called away and he had to bring it up in my absence. 1 have read the debate which then took place and I have had the pleasure of hearing what my hon. friend has said to-day, in a great part of which I entirely agree. There can be no question as to the nobility of the conduct of those representatives of Canada who served in South Africa. There are some reasons, which may be known to some hon. members of this House, which are known to my hon. friend at any rate, with reference to Trooper Molloy which should appeal specially and personally to me. However, in considering matters of this kind, we
must proceed on general lines. It is not, I think, desirable that we should deal with individual cases except perhaps in very rare instances. The work of classifying and determining the merits of the applications which have been made for pensions by Canadians who served in South Africa has not even yet been completed. I should have said that the men who enlisted in Canada for service in South Africa were perfectly well aware that they entered into a contract with the imperial government to accept from it the same treatment as imperial soldiers received. The work of determining the list has been going on for two years. There are something like ninety provisional or temporary pensioners, that is ^pensioners receiving pensions for a limited period of time. There are something like twenty getting permanent pensions. The list is not concluded, but the result will probably be that there will be about thirty permanent pensioners and something over a hundred pensioners for a term, which may or may not be renewed according to the deserts of the special or individual case.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What authority is giving the pensions ?


Frederick William Borden: The imperial government.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is the Canadian government ?


Frederick William Borden: No, that is not the arrangement.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not understand the reference to the lists not being completed.


Frederick William Borden: The question seems to resolve' itself into this. We have a pension list in this country. We are paying pensioners who served in the Fenian raid. We are paying pensioners who served in the Northwest rebellion. Surely they deserve as much consideration as the men who served in South Africa. Surely the men who defended the integrity of the soil of Canada against the invader and put down rebellion within this country are entitled to as much consideration as those who served the army in South Africa. The logical result then is that we should apply the pension rate in Canada, but not more, to the men who are pensioned upon the British government and who served in South Africa.


Robert Laird Borden: There were some who received special treatment.


Frederick William Borden: None so far as I know.


Andrew Broder: Oh, yes.


Frederick William Borden: I was not aware of that. However, the point I am going to make is this. In whatever we do we must proceed upon the same lines as we have proceeded upon in the past and apply

the same rules, and I am quite willing to do that. If it should turn out that the pensions which the men who have served in South Africa are receiving is below the Canadian pension, I should say we should do exactly agi we did in the case of the pay.. The House will remember that the parliament of Canada supplemented to the Canadians who served in South Africa the difference between the imperial rate of pay and the Canadian, and upon the same principle,
I would be disposed to make up to the South African pensioners any difference that there may be( between the rate of the imperial pension and the rate of the Canadian pension.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the difference ?


Frederick William Borden: I am not able to say but I do not think there is any very material difference. I have made some inquiry, and I believe that the Canadiau pension would not be materially if at all higher than the pension which Molloy is now receiving, but there would be a difference in some cases, and generally speaking I believe the Canadian rate of pension is slightly higher than the imperial rate. That is as much as I am able to say to-day, but as soon as the list is completed, I will look carefully into the case. The papers which my hon. friend has asked for will be brought down, and I hope, before the end of the session, to be able to make some explicit statement as to what will be done.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.   T.@: CHASE CASGRAIN (Montmorency) moved for :
Copies of all deeds, papers, documents, correspondence, &c., now existing in any department, and filed since the 15th of September, 1903, in relation to the contract executed in the course of last session, for the establishment of a line of steamers between Canada and France ; and to the subsidy payable for the said purpose ; or to any matter-or subject connected with the said contract and the said subsidy.	[DOT]
He said : It will be remembered that when this question was brought up last year everybody was agreed that if a first-rate line were established between some port in France and a port in Canada, the commerce of this country would greatly benefit, and when the resolutions were brought down, granting $133,000 a year for ten years towards the establishment of this new line, it passed without a dissenting voice.
Now, it will also be remembered that, when the matter was brought up last year, it was stated by the right hon. leader of the. House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that negotiations were being carried on with one M.


Frederick William Borden: Colombier of Bordeaux. And, when it was asked what references had been asked for in relation to M. Colombier's standing and financial ability, a telegram was produced from the British consul at Bordeaux saying that the Hoqse of Colombier was a respectable house, not of very large means, but quite able to grapple with the proposition that was at its door. It was suggested at , the time, and my hon. friends on the other side were warned from this side, and warned very pointedly, that probably M. Colombier was not the prime mover in this scheme but that he was personne inter-posee and for the purpose of giving the contract to one Mr. Carbonneau. Now, Mr. Carbonneau had not enjoyed, up to that time; a very savoury reputation in Canada ; and I must say, that reputation has not been enhanced by his actions since in Canada or France. But hon. gentlemen opposite were yery set, and declared that they did not know Mr. Carbonneau officially, but that all negotiations were being carried on with M. Colombier and not with Mr. Carbonneau. On several occasions my hon. friends on the other side were told by gentlemen on this side of the House that Mr. Carbonneau was really the person interested and that M. Colombier was only acting for Mr. Carbonneau. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. PrSfontaine) who I regret not to see in his place to-day gave us assurance in these words, which I quote from ' Hansard ' :
On this occasion the government is taking every precaution to achieve success.
For, it had been pointed out that this was 'a third or fourth attempt to establish a line of steamers between France and Canada and it would be too bad if, on this fourth occasion, the scheme fell through.
It was all the more important to establish a line of steamers between Canada and France because it was almost, if not quite, impossible to derive benefit from the Franco-Canadian treaty which had been entered into some time before, unless we had steamers plying between France and Canada. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine 'and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine) who came before the House with considerable data, and who seems to be the spon&or of this line and to have many friends amongst those who were connected with the enterprise, even went so far as to tell us that four ships were then under contract to be built and delivered by the 1st of April. 1904. I do not know where he got his information. It was precise information and, from it, it seemed that everything was ready so that these gentlemen not only could get the $133,000 that the contract gave them, but that this line of steamers would certainly be established for this season of navigation. Now, we find from answers which I had the honour of putting to the government, that very soon after

the end of last session if not while the session was still in progress, the contract given to M. Colombier was transferred to Mr. Carbonneau whom the government did not know officially. They had been warned, at that time, as I have said, that Mr. Carbonneau seemed to be the principal agent and principal factor in this scheme-the head pusher as my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) suggests. The government ignored Mr. Car-bonneau ; they did not know him officially. Yet, strange to say, almost immediately after the contract had been entered into between M. Colombier and the government that contract was transferred to Mr. Carbonneau. And what: do we find further ? We find that Mr. Carbonneau afterwards transferred the contract to some company by the name of Le Transport Canadien, Limited. Now, the line has not been established. It is true that two steamers have made two trips from France to Canada. The first steamers sailed from some port in France-Bordeaux I believe, calling at St. Pierre et Miquelon Islands and coming as far as Halifax. Of that trip. we have very little information. Another trip was made by a steamer called the ' Malou ' which arrived out the other day from the port of Bordeaux at Montreal. Concerning this, we have more information. The vessel seems to have carried quite a number of passengers, but, if the information in the newspapers is correct, the steamer was not at all fitted for the service. In fact, the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in answer to questions that I put, said that it was not admitted by the government that by causing the sailing of this steamer to a Canadian port M. Colombier had fulfilled any of the obligations he had entered into under the law passed last session. Now, it seems, the government are in negotiations with the linn of Armstrong. How they have got into the game-because it seem^ like a game-I do not understand. I do not know whether Mr. Carbonneau, after transferring his contract to the Transport Canadien has transferred it to the Armstrongs. If current rumour is true, Mr. Carbonneau has transferred the contract a second time to the firm of Armstrong which is now in negotiation with the government. All this will appear in the papers which I ask to have brought down. I would ask the government also to bring down the contract which was entered into last year. It is not mentioned in my motion, but, if necessary, I would ask leave to amend my motion to cover that.


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Casgrain) will find that the contract has been laid on the table.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: It was laid on the table, but I cannot find any trace of it in any of
the departments of the House. I have searched all the offices of the House, but cannot find it anywhere. I applied to the clerk without success. Through some mistake, it seems to have been taken away and it is not available. Under these circumstances. if necessary,' I will ask to amend my motion so that a copy of the contract may be produced with the other papers.
At all events I think it is in order for us to call the attention of the government to the fact that what we said last year is true, that the prime mover in this scheme was Mr. Carbonneau. and the government should have taken special precautions to see that he had nothing to do with the contract, especially that he should not be the principal person contracted with under the name of M. Colombier. Mr. Carbonneau is well known in this country. His reputation was made a good while before this contract was negotiated for. He was connected-as was pointed out-with an enterprise in Montreal which fell to the ground and which was one of the causes w-hy La Banque du Peuple had to go out of existence. And his reputation was not bettered by anything he did on the other side, either in England or in France. And I know that before the end of the session and before the Bill actually passed, certain papers were handed over to my right hon. friend the leader of the House in which the past career of Mr. Carbonneau was exposed. Now, Mr. Carbonneau to-day is practically a fugitive from justice. He cannot go to France. He cannot set foot in England. He cannot come to Montreal, because a dozen capiases have been issued against him, and he will be arrested as soon as he appears in that city. He cannot go to the Yukon. So, here is a man who was pointed out to the government by hon. gentlemen on this side as the principal one with whom they were contracting. It was known to everybody except the government that Mr. Carbonneau was at the bottom of this scheme. All the ministers were blind to the fact, but almost everybody else in the House knew that Mr. Carbonneau was really the man ; and the evidence to prove that we were right in this assumption is that when the contract was passed between M. Colombier and the government, it was immediately transferred to Mr. Carbonneau. I hope the papers will be brought down as soon as possible, because, of course, this is a matter that must be fully ventilated in this House. I would ask permission to amend my motion by ad'ding :
And also a copy of the contract executed between the government and M. Colombier.


Richard John Cartwright: My hon. friend, 1 think, will find that contract in the hands of some of the hon. gentlemen on the other side, but, of course, I have no objection in the world to the motion or the amendment.


Wilfrid Laurier: As has already been stated by the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright), there is no objection to these papers being brought down and they will be brought down immediately. My hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) has thought it advisable to pass some strictures on the government because it was reported last year that Mr. Carbonneau was behind this project. This report was true ; he was behind the project, but the government had nothing to do with him. It insisted on having all negotiations with M. Colombier, who belongs to a very respectable house. The report, as I say, was quite true, as I understand, but we had no-official knowledge of the fact in the department. It has been reported, and I believe it is beyond doubt, that almost immediately after the contract was signed it was transferred by Mr. Carbonneau to M. Colombier, who transferred it to a company called the Transport Canadien. The government would not recognize this assignment. The criticism of my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) would certainly be entitled to great weight if it were shown that the government had, had anything to do with Mr. Carbonneau and had been willing to recognize or to accept the assignments said to have been made by M. Colombier to Mr. Carbonneau and by Mr. Carbonneau to the Transport Canadien. But the government did nothing of the kind ; the government held Mr. Colombier strictly to his contract, and I am sorry to say that we have been once more disappointed, and that M. Colombier has not been able to carry out his contract. The merely colourable attempt which has been made to implement the contract is one which cannot be entertained. So far as I know, only one ship has been sent out by M. Colombier, that is the ship to which my hon. friend has just referred, the ' Malou.' The ' Malou ' left St. Malo on the 2nd of May. It touched at St. Pierre and Miquelon, where it lef|t a large number of fishermen of the class who always come there especially to fish on the Crand Banks, then proceeded to Halifax, and I believe also went to Montreal and landed some immigrants.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: And to New York also.


Wilfrid Laurier: And to New York, so it is impossible to ackowledge that as accomplishing the agreement, and M. Colombier has been notified that his contract will be cancelled and all assignments made toy him -will not be recognized. The government has had some inquiries and some negotiations also with the firm of Armstrong & Whitworth, the large shipbuilding firm. These negotiations with the great firm of Armstrong & Company have not yet been completed, and if the firm of Armstrong, Whitworth & Company are willing to enter into a contract w'ith us, I think we could do nothing better than enter into a contract with such a respectable firm as this. We 1 Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
woul3 then have what we have so long wished to have, a service to France, which has not yet been obtained.


Robert Laird Borden: The government do not seem to have been very much more successful with this enterprise than with the fast Atlantic service, at least up to the present time.


Wilfrid Laurier: No ; it has baffled the efforts of many governments.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems remarkable that we should have a statement last session from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that four ships would be completed by the spring of this year. It now appears that no ship has been even commenced, much less completed. When a responsible minister of the Crown makes a statement of that kind to parliament, and it has been so absolutely lacking in fulfilment, one would think my right hon. friend would think it worthy of some explanation when responding to the motion of my hon. friend (Mr, Casgrain). On what basis, on what authority, from what information, did the Minister of Marine and Fisheries make so extraordinary a statement to the House last year ? It seems to me to be absolutely unheard of that such a statement should have been made in this House when it seems to have been absolutely lacking in any foundation whatever. One could hardly suppose the Minister of Marine and Fisheries would toe so reckless in his statements to the House as to pass a remark of that kind without some authority or foundation for it, and yet we are not informed of any reason that he had for giving to the House so important a piece of information.
The right hon. gentleman says that the government did not know Mr. Carbonneau. although he believes the contract was assigned to him almost immediately after being entered into. Can it be true that if the government did not know Carbonneau officially, it really knew him practiciflly, and was weld aware that at the time that the contract was being made for his benefit, and with the intention that it should he assigned to him 7 That has been the current rumour, and if I am not mistaken it has been repeated more than once in the press. Under these circumstances, it hardly seems a justification to say that the government did not officially know Carbonneau if, as a matter of fact, a member of the government who has made important statements to the House on the subject did know and negotiate with Carbonneau and was aware that the contract was proposed to be assigned to him. However, when the papers are brought down we will have further information, and there will be further opportunity of discussion. In the absence of the documents to which my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) has referred, we have little information, and I should think that at some time

before the end of the session we might at least be favoured by the government with some information of the extraordinary statements to which attention has been' called. Every one in this country would naturally suppose that by this time we would have had four steamships engaged in a profitable and advantageous trade between France and this country. Instead of that we have nothing accomplished and are exactly where we were last year, the government still continuing negotiations. The only difference between this and the fast Atlantic service seems to be that while the government is continuing negotiations in this case, it has absolutely abandoned negotiations in the other case. I am depending for that statement on the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who, I think, gives the House to understand that. How long will it be before the two enterprises are exactly on the same footing, namely, that nothing shall have been accomplished and no negotiations shall be in progress ? Perhaps we might have a prophesy on that from the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright), who, from his experience, will be well able to inform the House just how long it will be before the government will abandon negotiations, having accomplished nothing in regard to the service between France and this country.
Perhaps my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce would not like to hazard a prophecy, but if any one in the House could give us any information upon that subject I would suppose that he should be called upon to do it. It is a pity the service has not been proceeded with. I assume that the government have taken it up on good grounds. I do not recollect all the data which was placed before the House last year but I recollect that I was impressed with the idea that service would be beneficial to this country and would build up some trade. It is therefore to be regretted that nothing has been accomplished and I trust that before the end of the session we shall have some further information about, the negotiations, because, in matters of this kind, we have become so accustomed to the methods of the government that we feel that even when negotiations are going on we have not reached that hopeless condition in which the fast Atlantic service finds itself to-day.


Richard John Cartwright: The late government were negotiating for a long time for a fast Atlantic service.


Robert Laird Borden: And they would have accomplished something if this government had not interfered.


Charles Fitzpatrick: With a big string to it.
Motion as amended agreed to.



LABOUR UNION LABELS.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide for the registration of labour union labels, and to provide pecuniary penalties for the unlawful use of such labels when so registered. -Mr. Ralph Smith.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.	.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On resolution of Mr. Ralph Smith.
Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not wish to offer any opposition to this resolution at the present time, but I want it very well understood 'that I would like to see the draft of the Bill based on this resolution. I do not know if my hon. friend has considered the question as to how far an organization not incorporated may have a label which may be in effect a trade mark, because that is really what it is intended by this resolution to make a trade union label.
Resolution reported, read a second time, and agreed to on divison.
Mr. RALPH SMITH moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 135) respecting labour union labels.


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

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 75) to amend the Companies' Act, 1902-Mr. Cowan.	j
On section 1,
Charles Fitzpatrick: This Bill is introduced for the purpose of removing a doubt suggested by the terms of section 5 of the Act as it now stands. That section provides for the incorporation by letters-patent of companies for any of the purposes or objects to which the legislative authority of parliament extends, and it then proceeds to say :
Except the construction and working of railways, or of telegraph or of telephone lines, or the business of banking and the issue of paper money, or the business of insurance, or the business of a loan company.
It is conceivable that this exception might be construed to cover the class of companies mentioned in the proposed subsection, although really it was not intended to do that. I quite agree that possibly a doubt may exist, and that it is desirable to remove that doubt, but I do not think my hon. friend has gone about it in the proper way. If he would pardon me, I would suggest that

that doubt should be removed by enacting provisions to the following effect :
The expression, * the construction and working of railways, or of telegraph, or of telephone lines,' in section 5 of the Companies Act, 1902, does not include the acting as a contractor in railway or telegraph, or telephone construction ; and nothing in the said Act shall he deemed or taken to prevent or to have prevented the granting thereunder of a charter by letters patent constituting a company for the purpose of acting as such contractor.
2. The expression, * construction and working of railways ' in section 3 of the Companies Act, chapter 117 of the revised statutes, does not include acting as a contractor in railway construction, and nothing in the said Act shall bo deemed or taken to prevent or to have prevented the granting thereunder of a charter by letters patent, constituting a company for the purpose of acting as said contractor.
I move that these clauses be substituted for the first clause of this Bill.


Mr. INGRAM.: What does section 5 provide now ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The evident intention of parliament was to reserve for parliament the incorporation of companies having for their object the construction and the working of railways, or telegraphs, or telephone lines, and also companies incorporated to carry on the business of banking and the issue of paper money, and the business of insurance or the business of a loan company. The amendment would declare that a company could be formed for the purposes of contracting for the construction of a railway or of a telephone or .telephone line. Instead of adopting the amendment suggested by the member for Essex (Mr. Cowan) I put in an interpretation clause so as to make it quite apparent that all we want to do is to declare that a company may be formed by letters patent, not to operate a railway or a telegraph, or a telephone line, but merely for the purpose of doing the contractors' work in building it.


Andrew B. Ingram: A person requiring anything further than that would have to get a special Act of Parliament ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


Mr. BARKER.: Now that the hon. Minister of Justice is proposing this very important amendment to a very important Bill, would he have any objection to allowing the committee to report progress, so that we would have time to consider his amendment ? I think what he proposes is reasonable, but still we ought to consider it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is quite a proper suggestion, and I concur in it. My hon. friend from Hamilton had better move that the committee rise and report progress.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Mr. BARKER, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.	.


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

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Lennox for the second reading of Bill (No. 73) to amend the Railway Act.
Mr. LENNOX.: I have already spoken on this matter. I presume the Minister of Justice will give his views.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Since this Bill was under consideration before, I have looked into it further, and I cannot see that there is any difference between it and the Bill introduced last session by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). This Bill is somewhat different in form., but in substance it is the same, and it is subject to the objection I then urged, which was that the Bill was unconstitutional and beyond the powers of this parliament to pass. The argument in support of the constitutional propriety of the legislation, so far as it depends on the claim of jurisdiction, appears to be based on subsections 10 and 11 of section 92 of the British North America Act. I cannot see how it is possible for us, under any proper construction of that Act, to claim that we have jurisdiction with respect to railways beyond those matters affecting their construction, operation and management. I would like to draw my hon. friend's attention to a case which I do not think he mentioned, that is, the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway vs. the County and Township of York, where, at page 70 of the 25th volume of the Appeal Reports of Ontario, Chief Justice Burton says :
The railway in question is one of the subjects placed under the exclusive jurisdiction, of the parliament of the Dominion, and it follows that in all matters affecting its construe-tioin,. Operation {and management, including the expropriation of the lands required- everything, in fact, necessary to its full and efficient working-the legislation of the Dominion is of paramount authority, even though it interferes with property and civil rights, and trenches on matters assigned to the provincial legislature by section 92 of the British North America Act.
Again, the question was up for consideration in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway vs. Notre Dame de Bonsecours, which my hon. friend will find in the Privy Council reports for 1889, page 367. There it was held that railway legislation, strictly so called, is the measure of parliament's jurisdiction. So far as complete provision for these purposes requires it, parliament has power also to deal with matters assigned to the local legislatures, but we cannot go any further than that. Under this Bill my hon. friend has in comtemplation a distinct in-

terference with a civil contract made in a province between an employer and an employee, and I think that the only way he could attempt for a moment to justify our interfering in a matter of that kind would be to deal with it as a matter affecting insurance or the regulation of trade and commerce. In the case of the Citizens' Insurance Company vs. Parsons, Appeal Cases, page 112, their Lordships say :
Regulation of trade and commerce includes political arrangements in regard to trade, requiring the sanction of parliament, regulation of trade in matters of interprovincial concern, and may, perhaps, include general regulation of trade affecting the whole Dominion, hut it does not comprehend the power to regulate by legislation the contracts of a particular business or trade (such as the business of fire insurance) in a single province.
Then Sir Horace Davey, in regard to the Dominion License Act, arguing, said :
Regulation of trade and commerce means general regulations as applicable to trade generally, of what may he called, for want of a better word, a political character, that is, for regulating trade and commerce between the Dominion and foreign countries, or, for instance, for regulating the trade between the provinces themselves. But it does not include minute regulations affecting the terms and conditions on which persons carrying on particular trades are allowed to do so in particular localities.
It seems to me the passage of this Bill would be a distinct interference with the rights of the provinces with respect to the relations between the employer and the employee, a distinct interference with what I would call a civil contract within a province. On that ground I object to this legislation, as I did to the legislation introduced last session by my hon. friend from [DOT]South Wellington.


James Clancy: 
Mr. HUGH GUTHBIE.: I recognize iu this Bill language very similar, and propositions very similar, to those contained in Bills with a similar object introduced by me last session and the session before last. This Bill is, perhaps, more radical thaii the Bills I introduced, as it absolutely takes away the right of the employee to contract himself out of liability. The Bill which I introduced on two former occasions left the right of contract but allowed the reasonableness of the contract to be decided by a court or a judge. Now, the great difficulty in the case is this :	That no plaintiff so
far, has had financial resources sufficient to get a decision from an Appellate Court. There are two judgments now upholding the rights of the railway companies but
Revised edition

they are only the judgments of trial judges. It may be that the case would be otherwise decided by the Supreme Court or the Privy Council; but it is not very likely that we shall have a plaintiff who is able to go that length. I would ask the Minister of Justice whether, having regard to the fact that there are some 25,000 or 30,000 railway employees, he would or would not be disposed to state the facts and submit a case to the Supreme Court for their opinion as to the constitutionality of the Act now before us. If the Ontario Act does apply, that is an end of it, and if it does not, then some legislation such as this, I think, might well be passed by this parliament.


George William Fowler: I was not present when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) made his remarks with respect to this Bill, but I understand that his contention is that this parliament has no jurisdiction in the matter. The present state of affairs was created by the legislation passed by this parliament in 1874 and 1878.
' That is the way I understand it. That legislation gives the Grand Trunk Railway the authority to organize this insurance company and to make just such contracts as are being made. That being the case, surely this parliament has the right to regulate the legislation it passed on those occasions. It seems to me that the merits of the case are very strong so far as the employees are concerned.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I did not touch the merits.


George William Fowler: I understand perfectly that the Minister of Justice did not argue the merits of the case, but has simply given his view of the law. But the merits are so strong that, where there is a reasonable doubt-rand I think there must be a reasonable doubt in the minister's mind-it seems to me he ought to allow this legislation to go through and then let the railway companies fight it out in the courts if parliament has not the jurisdiction. The number of railway employees in the country is very large and is rapidly increasing, and, if the Grand Trunk Pacific is carried through there will be many more. It seems to me that some relief is absolutely necessary. Look at the circumstances. A man goes into this employment which, as was stated by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) is a hazardous one. His wages, while, perhaps, a reasonable return for his labour, are not large. He makes a contract with his employer-must do it in order to be employed-not to seek damages in case he is injured, no matter how much fault there may be on the part of the employer. And if he is killed his family is precluded from seeking compensation for loss of the bread-winner. This is an undesirable state of affairs and one which parliament should Mr. GUTHRIE.	.
seen to remedy. This is the only place these people can come to for redress of their grievances, and this Bill is calculated to give that redress. It seems strange that this parliament, which controls the Intercolonial should, not, in this case at least arrange to have this obnoxious clause abolished, so that, when employees of the Intercolonial, if injured through the negligence of their fellow employees shall receive compensation for such injuries. The authorities are very clear. There is a case reported in 30, Supreme Court of Canada in which the chief justice gives his opinion that this contract can be enforced so far as the railway is concerned. We have here the judgment of the highest court of the land upholding this sort of contract. Therefore, the only way to get clear of it is by some such legislation as that proposed in this Bill.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Is that Grenier vs. the Queen ?


George William Fowler: Yes.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is a case I argued myself.


George William Fowler: Yes, the case was argued by the Minister of Justice himself. It seems to me there can be no question as to what the judgment of the court was.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The judgment was all right.


George William Fowler: It seems to me the case was exactly in point.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, but they held the contract good-


George William Fowler: That is what I say.
Mr. FITZPATRICK-under the civil law of the province.


George William Fowler: Do I understand the minister to say that we should interfere with provincial rights in passing such legislation as this ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


George William Fowler: This is a Dominion railway. Surely, we have the right to pass legislation incidental to the working of the road.


Charles Fitzpatrick: ' Construction, maintenance and operation.'


George William Fowler: This comes under the head of operation.


Charles Fitzpatrick: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would add a word to what I have already said. There is something in the suggestion of my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) as to the propriety of having the question decided. I have no doubt as to the soundness of the position I have assumed. But I have asked my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) who promotes the Bill to have it referred to the

committee. We can discuss it there. My view is that we might gain the object sought by making an amendment to section 242 of the Railway Act. And, as I have already expressed doubt as to the constitutionality of a part of subsection 3 of section 242, I do not know but that it would be wise to make an amendment that would meet his views, and then perhaps we might have a reference to the Supreme Court to have the matter decided. I do not pretend, while I have my own opinions on this subject, that I know everything that is to be known about it, and I quite appreciate the importance of coming to the assistance of these people who are connected with the operation of railways. At the same time I realize the importance on the other hand, of leaving all matters respecting contract within the provinces to the laws of the province, and in the case of Grenier vs. the Queen the Supreme Court decided formally that a contract entered into by the husband of the woman who was the plaintif in the case was binding on both parties. The question was raised and discussed. I was present and expressed that opinion and my opinion was sustained by tire court.


George William Fowler: That is the difficulty. If the contract was not binding it would not be necessary to have legislation.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I said that the contract is good under our civil code. This would operate with extreme hardship against the employees of railways in our province where we have no such doctrine as the law of contributory negligence and common employment. These I understand apply to the English provinces. In our province notwithstanding an accident might be caused by the negligence of a fellow-servant there is compensation but in the other provinces-


Robert Laird Borden: I think in all the provinces that is abrogated by statute.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am speaking more of the common law. In Ontario for
instance, you have the Workmen's Compensation Act. I am willing to have the matter referred to the Railway Committee where we will discuss and where I will suggest an amendment which would meet what my hon. friend has in view and in all probability- of course I cannot now speak with authority, as I have not consulted the other members of the government-we could have the matter referred to the Supreme Court for judical determination. That would be my own opinion.


Haughton Lennox: As I understand it the Minister of Justice purposes referring this to the Committee of the Whole House.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, I would suggest that the matter go to the Railway Com-150$
mittee, where we may have a fuller discussion than here, and then I will myself suggest an amendment which I think will go as far as my hon. friend intends, and possibly it might be determined that the government might have the matter referred to the Supreme Court.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand the Minister of Justice to say that in his opinion the Bill introduced by my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) is not a constitutional Bill. Some years ago when this very legislation was brought up in the province of Ontario, after soliciting information from the Grand Trunk Railway Company-that I thinli being the only company at that time which had a Provident Insurance Society under the Act of 1874-after receiving information they concluded that the majority of the employees of the Grand Trunk were not in favour of being excluded from the benefits of the Compensation for Injuries Act of the province of Ontario, but after getting that information they placed on the statute-book an amendment to the Compensation for Injuries Act to the effect that all employees connected with the insurance society in the Grand Trunk were excluded from the provisions of the Compensation for Injuries Act and therefore it was only those who were not connected with it in any way at all who come under that Act in Ontario. What I want to know is if this Act is an extension of the redress for the railway employees of the Grand Trunk Company who are connected with the Provident Insurance Society, would they by reason of assigning away their rights or contracting themselves out of any benefit or redress which they have other than simply the usual compensation of the Provident Insurance Society.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That was the only redress.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is a most extraordinary position. Here is a provincial government exercising control over Dominion railways. The railways for which they have apparently legislated are railways partially within one province and partially within another and therefore they hold when you go to the government of the province of Ontario that that province has no jurisdiction over these railways. The Minister of Justice shakes his head; I take it for granted they must have control according to his opinion.


Charles Fitzpatrick: With respect to those contracts which arise within the limits of the province.


Andrew B. Ingram: In so far as they affect the employees Provident Insurance Society but not otherwise. I do not see how the employees who feel that this is a great hardship are going to get their grievances re-

dressed unless this parliament takes hold of the matter and places legislation on the statute-hook, legislation that will relieve them. I cannot see any other way.


Haughton Lennox: I understood the Minister of Justice to say that he would move an amendment to section 242, subsection 3. I endeavoured to make it clear when moving the second reading of the Bill that I merely wanted to accomplish my purpose and would be very glad to have the assistance of the government. Why should not the Minister of Justice let the matter stand over and introduce his amendment so as to have it come up before the Committee of the Whole House at a subsequent time ? Why should we not consider it as we did the Railway Act of last session ? We did not have to go to the Railway Committee with that, and it seems to me it is a great advantage to discuss it in the whole House.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I prefer to have the matter go before the Railway Committee. There can be no loss by having it discussed very fully there. No detriment can come to my hon. friend or his Bill by having it discussed in that committee with the understanding that so far as the government is concerned we will see that the Bill is reported back to the House. Of course in so far as the reference to the Supreme Court is concerned, I can only express now my personal preference, I would prefer to recommend to the government that we should have a reference to the court, but of course I cannot commit the government now.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as the constitutional question is concerned, there will not be much advantage in sending the Bill to the Railway Committee, but there are other questions that affect the merits of the Bill, and to these I presume the minister refers. I have not given the constitutional questions any consideration. Has the minister any opinion as to whether it is within the power of parliament ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, I have not recently given the matter careful consideration either, because I presume, in view of the decision in Grenier vs The Queen that I was committed to the view I expressed then and I have not departed from it. I think that view was upheld by the court.


Robert Laird Borden: I think we all agree that in the absence of legislation from the parliament of Canada the question of liability must be determined by the law of the provinces. But that is not an end of the question submitted by my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox). The question still remains whether or not this subject is so directly connected with a matter over which we have jurisdiction that this parliament can in thatJ


Andrew B. Ingram: *
respect interfere with the law of the provinces. Of course the Minister of Justice is quite as familiar as I am, or more familiar than I am, with the extent to which the doctrine of incidental jurisdiction, if I may so express it, has been carried by the courts.
It occurred to me while the discussion was going on that it might be possible for this parliament, for example, in a Bill incorporating a railway company, or in a Bill dealing generally with railway companies, to make provision requiring notice of action. Legislation of that kind is of very frequent occurrence on the statute-book of Canada, and probably in some cases which are not very far from the matter which we are now discussing. Well, if you concede that that would be possible, you are not really very far away from what my hon. friend from Simcoe is urging. He is urging just the converse of 'that, namely', that employees engaged by that company for the operation of the road may not by contract with the company deprive themselves of certain rights in connection with injuries which they may sustain while engaged in that work. I have no strong opinion on the subject, because I have non considered it, but I think the proposition would be quite arguable, and I would be inclined to think that the course suggested by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, namely, to have the whole of this question, in connection with some other question mentioned by him, referred to the Supreme Court, would perhaps be the best course to adopt.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Perhaps I am trespassing upon the rules of the House, but I would like my hon. friend to understand my reason for, at the present time at all events, agreeing with the course proposed to be taken. A careful reading of the Grand Trunk Act does suggest a doubt on the question. Incidentally a doubt has been raised in respect to the question of jurisdiction, and in view of that doubt I would be quite satisfied to recommend to the government a reference of this question to the Supreme Court.


Haughton Lennox: Do I understand my hon. friend the Minister of Justice to move that the reference of this Bill be to the Railway Committee '! I recognize that there is no use of dividing the House on the question.


Mr. SPE AKER.: The motion at present is for the Second reading only. The other motion cannot be made until the motion for the second reading is disposed of.


Haughton Lennox: Do I understand the hon. minister to move that this order be discharged and that the Bill be referred to the Railway Committee ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The proper course is to move the second reading, and then some one may move to refer the Bill to the Railway Committee.


Haughton Lennox: I do not wish to be understood as agreeing to the propositions which were advanced by the lion. Minister of Justice, great deference as I certainly have for his opinion. The cases that I referred to in the argument in chief my hon. friend has not seen tit to deal with. I have referred to the cases to sustain my argument. I have endeavoured to make it clear, and I think I have from the authorities I have cited made it reasonably clear that what we can do is to restore this matter to the position in which it was before. That is all my Bill aims at, and if we do that we will not meet that question arising under section 92 of the British North America Act. As regards the question of incidental rights, I have also cited cases. In regard to the main proposition, that we are only restoring matters to the position in which they were in law in the various provinces 'before, I would say that that is the position which I endeavoured to take in my argument, and it is a position which the hon. Minister of Justice has not dealt with on this occasion. In Quebec in two cases and in Ontario in two cases it has been decided that owing to the legislation passed by this House the parties cannot recover, and owing to that legislation only. It seems to me that this House is in a position to so modify its own legislation in such a way that provincial law will prevail. I shall not trespass upon the time of the House further, but I am very much disappointed that we cannot have this matter referred to the Committee of the Whole House ; but as no good purpose would be served by dividing Ibe House upon the question, I will not press the question to a division.


Mr. L. P. DEMERS. (Translation).: In my opinion, it would be unwise to pass such a law. Should this parliament adhere to a legislation of this kind, there would be a matter of conflict between the provincial and federal laws, and that is most assuredly undesirable. In the case of a matter pertaining to provincial jurisdiction that may only incidentally be submitted to this parliament, is it wise to pass legislation that might conflict witli the provincial legislation? I contend it is not. We have this instanced in our statutes in connection with the Insurance Act. In one clause of this Act, it is stipulated that the policy shall not be voided through the insured making an untrue statement in connection with his age. Now, in the jorovince of Quebec, it is provided in our law that such untrue statement is sufficient to cause the insurance contract to be cancelled. Which legislation, one may wonder, is likely to obtain, should an emergencyof this kind come to happen? Jurists are giving their attention to this puzzling question. Why did this parliament interfere in the matter when, under the local legislation, that contract was being cancelled? No available argument has been alleged so far for justifying that interference.
Many lawyers believe that this legislation does not come under the jurisdiction of this parliament because the contracts are subject to the local jurisdiction. Like several judges who have incidentally studied the question, Mr. Holt, in his Treatise on Insurance, believes that this matter is not pertaining to the federal jurisdiction. However, owing to the interference of this parliament, we have a legal conflict of this kind in the province of Quebec, that is we have a provincial law providing that the insurance contract is v'oided in the case of an untrue statement as to the age, and a federal law stating the contrary, which means that the untrue statement does not cause the contract to be cancelled.
It is now suggested that we should have a double legislation in order to regulate the relations as between employers and employees. We would then be in this strange position that, according to the provincial law, the contract is having legal force, whereas our federal legislation would state the contrary. Would it be wise for this parliament to pass such legislation? I submit it would not, and I contend we should not i legislate in such a way as to cause legal conflicts.
Motion (Mr. Lennox) agreed to, and Bill read the second time.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That Bill (No. 73) to amend the Railway Act (Mr. Lennox) he referred to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
. Mr. F. B. WADE moved the second reading of Bill (No. 76) to amend the Criminal Code, 1892.
An hon. MEMBER.: Explain.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I have explained this Bill once before. The Bill is the same as that which I introduced last session. Section 343 of the Criminal Code contains a provision for the punishment of parties who are guilty of stealing gold, quartz, or ores, &c., but the difficulty experienced in the past has been that it was impossible to prove the ownership of the gold or amalgam that was stolen. For instance, a party might trade with the employees of the mine, or they might steal gold or amalgam themselves, and there is no way of identifying it. The mine owners have been labouring under very great hardship in the past. There has been very great complaint throughout the province of Nova Scotia, although I suppose there is scarcely any complaint from the other provinces on account of the difference in character of the gold. In Nova Scotia the complaint is very general that around all the mining camps there are parties who trade in gold, either trading with the workmen or with those

who have an opportunity of breaking the quartz. This has been so ruinous to the mine owners that they determined to take some action, and at the meeting of the Miners' Association of Nova Scotia iast year they adopted a resolution and urged it on the attention of the government. The Bill which was introduced last session did not go through, and they brought it up again in their general meeting. They are unanimous in asking to have this law enacted. I could give very many instances of how the present law works. A party may be in a mining camp, he may be a pedlar, he may be in possession of hundreds and thousands of dollars' worth of gold, and yet it is absolutely impossible to prove he is a thief, because the ownership of the gold cannot be proved. This Bill is designed to remedy that evil by casting the burden of proof on the person who is found in possession of gold or gold amalgam. The Bill does not apply to any other province in the Dominion except Nova Scotia. The provisions of the Bill are taken from the West Australia Act. They are almost identical with what is aimed at here, namely, that on the party who is found in possession of gold or gold amalgam is cast the burden of proof as to how he came by the gold or gold amalgam. I fancy that if this Bill becomes law the stealing that is now going on will be done away with.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 343a,
Frederick William Borden: There is in the province of Nova Scotia a feeling that some legislation of this kind should be enacted. I am informed by men who are familiar with the subject, that there have been a great many thefts of gold and a good deal of difficulty in obtaining convictions. I would be inclined to ask, whether the words which concern the burden of proof are not a little too comprehensive.


Fletcher Bath Wade: That is the whole principle of the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: That is the important part of it, I know.


Fletcher Bath Wade: That is what the mine-owners are contending for. If a person comes by the gold honestly he can easily show it, but if he is not able to show that, the presumption is that he came by it dishonestly. I am informed that there are people in cities who deal in an underhand way with parties from these different camps. I have a very strong letter in my possession from Mr. George Stewart, whom the leader of the opposition knows well, saying that this legislation is imperative and that some mines have actually been closed down in consequence of the evil complained of. Near one mining camp in which I was interested, there was a chap who kept a Mr. WADE.
beer shop, and on learning that the yield from the mill was a certain amount, he said : 1 They have beaten me this month by two ounces.' This is a very serious thing, and I hope the leader of the opposition will not object.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not objecting.


Fletcher Bath Wade: The matter has been very carefully considered by the Mining Association of Nova Scotia ; I have given it a great deal of thought since last session, and I can see no other way of attempting to remedy the evil.


Robert Laird Borden: I agree with the principle of the Bill, but the language is certainly very unrestricted, although I cannot at this moment suggest how you would get at the intention in any different way. Is there any precedent for this legislation in the statutes of the other colonies.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is borrowed almost *word for word from the West Australia Act. I do not think that we should dispose of this Bill to-night. I will have to consider the question of the penalty, and when the matter comes up again I will bring the West Australia Act with me.


Robert Laird Borden: If such a law has been enacted elsewhere and has not been accompanied with any injustice or evil results, I do not think I would object to it.
On section 343b,


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: It seems to me that this section goes very far. Under it, a person absolutely innocent of any crime might be arrested and put to the expense of proving his innocence. The Bill says that any one is guilty of an offence who is deemed ' to have been watching and patrolling outside and in the vicinity of any premises on or about which gold, reasonably suspected of being stolen or unlawfully obtained or held, is found and seized by any peace officer.' It seems to me that it would be important to connect the patrolling and watching with the offence that is really committed ; because a man may be watching and patrolling outside with some other object altogether. He will also be deemed guilty if he is proved ' to have been accompanying any person having in his possession any gold reasonably suspected of being stolen or unlawfully obtained or held.' A person might be in the company of a dishonest man for a perfectly legitimate purpose. He might be in the-company of a man who had really stolen the gold and yet be absolutely innocent of any knowledge of the crime. I quite understand that there is a necessity for some such legislation as that contained in this Bill ; but it seems to me that this sectio.n goes much further than prudent legislation should go. We must be careful, in passing any such legislation, not to expose innocent

persons to the trouble, annoyance and disgrace of being prosecuted on what under other circumstances would be a charge of receiving stolen goods.


Fletcher Bath Wade: So far as I am concerned, X am only seeking to accomplish a certain purpose, and I do not want the Bill to pass this House so framed as to subject any innocent person to improper prosecution. 1 am quite willing that every safeguard should be adopted to prevent that. The proviso in section 343c, to the effect that ' no person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if he proves to the satisfaction of the justice that his presence was innocent, might be extended to the section under discussion. I assume that the hon.: gentleman (Mr. Casgrain) is not familiar with the industry of gold mining in the province Of Nova Scotia. Usually the parties who traffic in stolen gold have confederates. What, is designed here is to prevent a confederate trafficking with miners. Sometimes they go round among the miners with strong waters. The object of this provision is to punish both the man who has the gold in his possession and the man who is in his company at the time it is discovered. This is what the mine owners want. If any safeguard can be thrown about it so that innocent persons will not suffer, I will be content.


Frederick William Borden: I think it should be subject to the qualifications in section 343c, because it makes the guilt of one man depend not upon his own criminal intent, but on the guilt of another.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Let me take the instance stated by the hon. member for Annapolis a moment ago. Suppose a pedlar goes to peddle strong drink to the miners, and is found in company of a man who has stolen gold. It is, I suppose, an offence against the laws of the province to peddle whisky without a license.


Fletcher Bath Wade: They call it 'siwash' around mining camps.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: This man would have to admit that he was there selling liquor without a license in order to prove his innocence of the greater offence. Therefore, he would have to admit his guilt, which is against the principles of criminal legislation.


William Stevens Fielding: In Nova Scotia he would not be allowed to peddle it with a license.


Robert Laird Borden: I would not be troubled much with that consideration, because I do not think he would have any injustice done to him if he were obliged to admit that he was selling liquor. I think we should have, with regard to both these subsections, some such proviso as that contained in 343c, though I do not know that I am perfectly satisfied with the language used.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I am not such a strong temperance advocate as my hon. friend who sits beside me. That was an extreme case ; but a man might be there on other business which he would not wish to divulge, and might be perfectly innocent of complicity in stealing the gold ; but, in order to prove his innocence, he would have to divulge some secret which it would not perhaps be in his interest to divulge. This is going so much against all sound principles of criminal legislation that I think we should proceed with great prudence and so frame the law that innocent persons would not be exposed to the humilation of being charged with this offence.


William Stevens Fielding: The need of this legislation is very much felt in mining districts. At the close of the discussion we might let the Bill remain in the committee, and have a conference with the Minister of Justice to see if the objections could be met. Of course, care should be taken that no innocent man suffers ; but one only needs to have knowledge of the mining business in Nova Scotia to realize the need of legislation of this kind.
On section 3,
This Act shall apply only to the province of Nova Scotia.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Is- there any other example of criminal legislation being made applicable to one province only ? Rather strange that what should be an offence, and such an offence as theft, in one province, should not be in the others. There are gold mines elsewhere than in Nova Scotia, and if this legislation be proper to apply to Nova Scotia why should it not extend to the whole Dominion ? It is somewhat singular that we should legislate in criminal matters only for one province.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We have a criminal procedure applicable to Quebec alone.


Fletcher Bath Wade: It would be impossible to make this law applicable to the whole Dominion. How would it operate. in the Yukon, for instance, where gold nuggets are currency ? It would create a revolution out there. I do not know that any evil of the kind exists in the province of Quebec or Ontario. I have heard no complaints, but it applies particularly to Nova Scotia in consequence of the character of its gold. It is a rough heavy gold, and it is very easy for workmen or others to break off these ingots and carry them away. I have seen two pieces of quartz containing $4,000 wrorth of gold, and the man could enrich himself in a very short time by breaking off pieces and carrying them away. I would ask the com-mitteee to allow me to read part of a letter from Mr. George W. Stuart, of Truro, who is one of our foremost gold miners in Nova Scotia, and whom my hon. friend the leader

of the opposition well knows. He is writing to the secretary of the Mfiilng Association :
Will you please state for the next meeting of the council the matter of writing Mr. Wade to press to an immediate finish the amendment of the criminal law in connection with gold stealing.
Only last week one of those peregrinating parasites-an Armenian pedlar-sold no less than 53 ounces of gold here in Truro, procured in the eastern districts. This gold, every grain of it, of course, was stolen from the various mines by the employees, and sold to this miserable wretch of a pedlar at a reduced price, and all manner of trash in the shape of cheap brass jewellery, much of it given in'exchange and any cash that might be received would be spent in raw whisky.
The evil effects of this nefarious business is far-reaching, even to the extent of closing down mines, tying up capital and throwing many men out of employment.	[DOT]
Did we have a law such as we have earnestly asked for, this pilfering would soon cease altogether.
Take the case above referred to, this man (pedlar) would have been arrested and when arrested he would at once plead ignorance of law and give up the gold and every man's name he purchased from, the man who sold to him would be traced to the respective mines they worked in and the gold restored to rightful owners and the miners prosecuted. I trust the council will urge Mr. Wade to introduce this Bill at ojice in the early days of the session ; we are absoutely suffering from want of it.
Then, Mr. Stuart goes on to use even stronger language. I am sure he voices the entire sentiment of the mining industry of Nova Scotia. Further than that, he speaks the opinions of the honest employees in the mines who desire this law to be passed because they are now resting under a suspicion from which they should be relieved.
Progress reported.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES REPRESENTATION-YUKON REPRESENTATION.

Charles Fitzpatrick: I will have to ask that the next two orders, the second reading of Bill (No. 117) to amend the Northwest. Territories Representation Act, and Bill (No. 118) to amend the Yukon Territory Representation Act, be allowed to stand, in the absence of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton).


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Of course, I have no objection in regard to the second order, that regarding the adjourned debate on the second reading of the Yukon Territory Representation Bill, because it was understood that my hon. friend would introduce legislation amending generally the Yukon Territory Act. But, I am very much afraid that, if we adjourn the debate on the first of these two, that is the Bill to amend the Northwest Territories Representation Act, it will not come up again this session.


Fletcher Bath Wade: 


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think we ought to give my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) assurance that, if he will agree to postpone it now another opportunity for the discussion of it will be allowed, because the postponement is to suit our convenience.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Very well, on that understanding, I agree.
Order allowed to stand.



CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 119) to amend the Canada Temperance Act-Mr. Law-read a second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Charles Fitzpatrick: I understand that the only change made in the law by this amendment is to make this offense punishable by hard labour and not by imprisonment only. The disadvantage of the present law is that it is found that when it becomes too cold to stay outside, the prisons fill up by the influx of those who break this law, thus causing expense and injury to the public. But, under this proposed amendment, the person guilty of infraction of the law would be called upon to do something for his country in the way of hard labour.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: And then you will let them out on ticket-of-leave.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That depends upon the applications made by my hon. friends opposite. When they are meritorious I act upon them.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



PROHIBITION OF CIGARETTES.

Right Hon.   S@: MACLEAN (Huntingdon) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 128) to prohibit the importation, manufacture or sale of cigarettes.
House divided on the motion :
YEAS : Messieurs.
Alcorn,	Lavell,
Avery,	Law,
Ball,	Lefurgey,
Barker,	Loy,
Bell,	Macdonald,
Blain,	Mackie,
Blanchet,	MacKinnon,
Broder,	MacLaren (Huntingdon)
Bruce,	Macpherson,
Carscallen,	McGugan,
Christie,	Matheson,
Douglas,	Morin,
Earle,	Oliver,
Fielding,	Paterson,
Fowler,	Pope,
Gibson,	Reid (Restigouche),
Gilmour,	Riley,
lould,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
Hackett,	Schell,

Henderson,
Holmes,
Ingram,
Johnston (Lambton), Kidd,
Lang,
LaRiviere,
Smith (Vancouver), Stewart,
Sutherland (Essex), Taylor,
Tolton,
Wilson,
Wright-52.


Andrew B. Ingram: What will ibe the nature of this amendment V


Wilfrid Laurier: In the direction of improvements generally.
. THE COAL OIL DUTY.
Brodeur,
Bureau,
Casgrain,
Champagne,
Clarke,
Copp,
Costigan,
Cowan,
Demers (St. John) Fitzpatrick,
Fortier,
Gauvreau,
Girard,
Harwood,
Johnston (Cape Breton)
NAYS :
Messieurs.
Lavergne
(Drummond & Arth.), Lavergne (Montmagny), Logan,
McCool,
Mclsaac,
Marcil (Bagot),
Marcil (Bonaventure), Mignault,
Murray,
Prefontaine,
Ross (Rimouski), Sinclair,
Tucker-28.
For.
Kaulbach,
PAIRS :
Against
Kendall.


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

[Stage Direction]
For copies of all correspondence with and by the government or any department thereof, or with the officials of any department of the government, relating to applications for employment on the surveys of the proposed Railway Company of Canada, or the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, in relation to such applications, since the 30th May ult., up to date. -Mr. Clarke.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, the House adjourned at 10 o'clock p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. .1. E. ARMSTRONG. I would like to request the government that all petitions, pro and con, with reference to the duty on oil be laid on the table. A number of petitions have been presented to the government from towns and villages In western Ontario asking the government not to interfere with the duty, on oil, and there have been one or two asking that the duty be interfered with. 1 would ask that all the petitions he laid on the table.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to make a personal explanation. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice a short time ago said that a reference had been made of the telephone question to the Supreme Court. I put a question on the paper asking whether a reference had been made, and if so, what reference. The answer given by the Minister of Railways was that no reference had been made. I take this opportunity of letting the public, and especially those directly interested, know that no reference has been made to the Supreme Court, and that the Minister of Justice was in error when he made the statement he did. I also take tills opportunity of informing the government that In the Railway Committee an arrangement was made that certain amendments of mine to the Railway Act should be considered in committee two weeks hence, and I wish to take this opportunity of informing the government that that arrangement does not preclude my bringing forward my amendments in connection with the Bill of the Minister of Justice to amend the Railway Act.
Tuesday, June 14, 1904.