1905-02-27

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 82) to incorporate the Dominion Annuity Company.-Mr. Bole.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I intend to ask the attention of the House to a very grave matter ; and, if necessary, to put myself in order, I will conclude with a motion. The very important matter to which I propose to call attention has reference to provincial rights, particularly the rights of the province of Manitoba, and I regret very much that neither the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) nor the late premier of Manitoba (Mr. Greenway), who has now a seat in this House, is in his place. It is largely because these hon. gentlemen have not chosen to call the attention of the House to this matter that I do so to-day. I think I can best bring the question immediately within the view of hon. members by reading a translation of an article that was published in ' Le Soleil ' of Quebec, on February 11.


Mr. EMMERSON.: Read the original.


William Findlay Maclean: securities of Canada, to form a school fund, and the interest arising therefrom, after deducting the cost of management, shall be paid annually to the government of the province or territory within which such lands are situated, towards the support of public schools therein; and the moneys so paid shall be distributed for that purpose by the government of such province or territory in such manner as it deems expedient.
Now, from the statement which was made to all Canada the other day, we must infer that the Dominion Lands Act is to be changed, and that in the province of Manitoba these school lands, which are now consecrated to public schools, not to separate schools, are to be sold, and the proceeds distributed in an entirely different way. That follows from the statement made here the other day, and on behalf of Manitoba I protest to-day against any such change in the law, or any such chastisement being meted out to that province as is proposed by this organ of the government. That organ wants Manitoba chastised because of certain laws which that province has passed in connection with the school lands, and yet this same organ is the mouthpiece of this government, of which the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) is a member, and of which the late premier of Manitoba (Mr. Greenway) is an ardent supporter. If any wrong has been wrought to the Roman Catholic minority of Manitoba in connection with the school question, is not that due to the Minister of the Interior and the late premier of Manitoba ? They it was who caused the Manitoba legislation now complained of to be enacted. It was the ' Liberal party which passed it, and did so in the interests of that province. Yet to-day we have the Dominion government, of which these gentlemen are the mainstay, threatening, through its leading organ, to chastise Manitoba because of that very legislation. That organ says to the province of Manitoba : You shall not extend your bounds, you shall continue in the lowly inferior position you now occupy. On behalf of that province, and because these gentlemen are not here to raise their voices in its behalf, I raise mine.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.


William Findlay Maclean: I raise my protest because the proposal about to be made here is of a most far reaching character. Not only the school lands of Manitoba, but the whole educational fund of that province, is to be changed by a general Act, which must follow from what was said here the other day. I draw the attention of the right hon. gentleman to this. If these important changes are to be made on the lines laid down by him, then it follows that remedial legislation is in order as concerns Manitoba. The argument is an a fortiori one. Remedial legislation must follow, and it will be introduced in this House by the right hon. gentleman who warned the coun-Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
try against such legislation eight years ago. There is this prospect for Manitoba, that all her schools lands are, in every probability, to be diverted this very session of parliament to other purposes than those to which they are devoted to-day by a general Act amending the Dominion Lands Act. Furthermore the Manitoba school funds are to be diverted by legislation which must follow as a logical sequence from the statement made the other day. Logically the right hon. gentleman is bound to introduce a Bill remedying the school grievances of the minority in the province of Manitoba, and yet these very so called grievances are due to the Minister of the Interior of this government and his friend (Mr. Greenway) who, I am told, is to be his immediate successor in this government. It was to give these hon. gentlemen an opportunity here to repudiate this language, to say they could not be parties to any such legislation, that I brought this mattter up to-day ; and in all probability the absence of the hon. the Minister of the Interior from this House ever since the beginning of this session and the absence of the hon. member for Lisgar, (Mr. Greenway) to-day are due to their desire to shirk their manifest duty in connection with this matter. The hon. the Minister of the Interior was here only for a moment the other day, and his absence no doubt is due, as well as that of the other hon. gentleman, to what is in the immediate future in store for them. If what was foreshadowed the other day is to happen, it must follow that those school lands are to be diverted from their present purpose and a Remedial Bill introduced this session, and the party, which claims to be the defender of provincial rights from one end of the country to the other, is to-day doing nothing to prevent the shackles being put on the provinces of this great and free Dominion. These provinces are to-day free, ahd my right hon. friend must know that if there is one thing which the people who breathe the free air of the prairies, the people of the great west, value, it is their political liberty ; and if the right hon. gentleman insists on shackling these people in connection with the dispossession of their school lands, he will make a great mistake. He apparently does not understand the genius of the western people if he thinks that by aid of any constitutional argument, he can interfere with the school lands of the province of Manitoba. I leave the case for the present but may have to return to it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: But I shall wait until the Minister of the Interior is in his place. Again I call the attention of the right hon. gentleman to the absence of a number of his ministers from this House. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Sutherland) is not here. I regret that he is ill, but the constitutional practice is that when a minister is not able to take his place in

the House he ought to vacate the position, both in his own interest and that of the country- The hon. member for London, (Mr. Hyman), who is discharging the duties of the Minister of Public Works, is contravening the constitution every day under the circumstances.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh !


William Findlay Maclean: Hon. gentlemen opposite laugh, but they used to attack the late government about this very thing. I regret that the Minister of the Interior, (Mr. Sifton) was not in his place at the time when these provincial rights which he held at one time to be most dear to the people of Manitoba, were being assailed. I recollect when that hon. gentleman came down to the province of Ontario and told the people of Haldimand that of all things the people of Manitoba did not want separate schools or remedial legislation imposed upon them. He came to the province of Ontario for sympathy on that score and he got it. But now if we are to believe the right hon. gentleman's organ, all that is to be taken back, the school lands are to be diverted from their proper purpose, and the hon. gentleman is bound, if he carries out what he promised, to introduce this session, an Act to remedy the school grievances of the minority of Manitoba. If any such thing be attempted, the wrong will be done, provincial rights will be taken away, and to-day, in the absence of the two hon. gentlemen to whom I especially referred, I rise to protest against the policy outlined by the right hon. gentleman in connection with these matters. I move that the House do now adjourn.


Right Hon.   S@: One could hardly imagine that any hon. gentleman would rise to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of inflicting on us such a ramshackle- if I may use such an expression-delivery as we have had from my hon. friend. He has given us a very modern exemplification of the old story of Don Quixote tilting against wind mills. My hon. friend is becoming every session more and more quixotic in his views and methods. Take this item which he has just read from the 'Sol-eil ' and on which he has built so unwarranted a conclusion that the government contemplates introducing a Remedial Bill to amend the law of Manitoba. There is not a scintilla in the article of the 'Soleil ' which can warrant any such conclusion. The whole thing is manufactured-I will not say wilfully-but if not, I know not how to characterize in what manner it was manufactured. Where is there a single word to warrant what the hon. gentleman sees there ?


William Findlay Maclean: I did not say that it was there.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: My hon. friend admits there is nothing there to warrant his outbreak. The whole thing is in my hon. friend's own mind, and it is from his own mind alone that he has evolved the notion that this government contemplates any such thing as introducing a Remedial Bill for the province of Manitoba. That is the only authority he has for his remarks this afternoon. The thing is too absurd for consideration. My hon. friend professes to have his soul harrowed by the prospect he contemplates. Let me tell him once and for all that the government since 1896 has never contemplated introducing any Remedial Act affecting the province of Manitoba and does not intend doing so.


William Findlay Maclean: What about the school lands ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I may say to the hon. gentleman that the government has not contemplated and does not contemplate to introduce any law to amend the School Law. Is that categorical enough for the hon. gentleman?


William Findlay Maclean: You cannot change the School Law without changing the Dominion Lands Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then I will make my answer more categorical yet. The government has not contemplated, does not contemplate and will not contemplate any amendment to the Dominion Lands Act. I do not understand what the hon. gentleman is aiming at to-day. If he has any object it must be to try and create a false impression to arouse prejudices somewhere. But the hon. gentleman began by expressing his deep regret that the Minister of the Interior and the hon. member from Lisgar (Mr. Greenway) the former premier of Manitoba, were not in their seats. Why, Sir, it would have been very easy for the hon. gentleman to secure their presence in their seats if he wanted them to be present. Why did he not notify them that he wanted to bring before the House some question requiring their presence, and which required them to make some defence to charges that he intended to bring against them. Did the hon. gentleman notify the Minister of the Interior that he wanted him here today? Did he notify the hon. member for Lisgar that he desired his presence here today? I am in the judgment of the House when I say that the hon. gentleman, when he intended to bring charges against the members of the House, wilful and deliberate charges, has not had the manliness to notify them that he intended to do so. As to the ' Soleil,' I have no interest whatever in that newspaper, financial or otherwise. It generally supports the government, but sometimes opposes it. If the hon. gentleman expects me to be responsible for anything that is published in the ' Soliel,' he is asking more from me than one would ask

from any other member of parliament. The hon. member may be responsible for what appears in the Toronto * World,' I have not had the same connection with the 'Soleil., I have nothing to do with the article in the ' Soleil,' which I had not read and had not heard of until it was read on the floor of the House.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman is trying to draw a red herring across the track. This newspaper which declares it is his organ, and he has not repudiated it, says that the province of Manitoba is to be chastised because of its pretentious school law, it is to be chastised by the right hon. gentleman and his party, and the chastisement is in evidence now before all the people. Manitoba expected that her boundaries would be extended, and she expected that the Minister of the interior would be here to see that her boundaries were extended, but Manitoba is being chastised to-day, as the organ of the right hon. gentleman says, because of her pretentious school laws. They are not pretentious, they are constitutional, she had a right to make them, yet she is to be chastised to-day. The right hon. gentleman said practically the other day that the province was entitled to have its boundaries enlarged, it was entitled to be put on an equality with the other provinces. All over the country the statement has been published that Manitoba is being chastised because of her manliness in connection with public schools. The right hon. gentleman says he does not propose to interfere with the Dominion Lands Act. He does in substance, he does in a certain measure which I know of, where it is all outlined that the public school lands and the public funds in relation to education are to be interfered with. It may be in a special Bill, but the intention is to make laws in that direction. What follows then is this, that in the way the right hon. gentleman aproaches this question he is making flesh of one and fish of the other ; certain provinces are to enjoy certain school lands and others are to be denied them. If that is not an injustice and an interference with the lands of the province, I do not know what it is. The right hon. gentleman is trying to get away from this question in saying that he does not propose to introduce remedial legislation. He is bound to introduce it if there is anything in the constitutional argument he made here the other day. There is nothing in that constitutional argument, but there is a great deal in the constitutional argument tli at Manitoba is entitled to remedial legislation. If that is true, I will have to put up for the present with the trivial reply of the right hon. gentleman; but before two weeks are over, before another week is over, he will sing on the other side of his face. He will find that the people of Canada are in favour of the maintenance of provincial rights; they are not in favour of Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
a paternalized autonomy like that which the hon. gentleman proposes. The people of this country believe in provincial rights as they have been defined and won out by the province of Manitoba. Again I say that the hon. gentleman is attempting a revolution, and the Minister of the Interior ought to be in his place here to-day, since these things are being done in the department over which he presides. The hon. gentleman asks why I did not notify the Minister of the Interior? Am I the Minister of the Interior's keeper? If he is not in his place, where shall I have to go to find him? It is not for the right hon. gentleman to say to me that I should notify this man or notify that man; let them be here to look after themselves.


Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington).: The hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) who has just resumed his seat, may not be the keeper of the Minister of the Interior. But there is a rule of courtesy recognized in this House which requires that when an hon. member intenus to bring up a matter pertaining particularly to any department, the minister presiding over that department must be notified. Ministers have all sorts of reasons for not being in the House. Deputations wait upon them from time to time, as we all know. We know not why the Minister of the Interior is not in his place to-day; but there is this much about it, it is a small thing and a mean thing for the hon. member for South York to make these remarks without having intimated to the Minister of the Interior that he desired his presence here. Now I desire on this occasion to enter my protest against such interruptions and interjections, on the Orders of the Day being called, as have been made by the hon. member for South York. If there is anything calculated to stir up strife and trouble in this country it is speeches such as that hon. gentleman has delivered, and articles that appear in his newspaper. If hon. members in this House would treat the question which the hon. member for South York has introduced, with calmness, with candour, with that liberality which no doubt they all possess, there would be no danger of producing that storm and that inflamed condition of the public mind which appears in the party press and among the people,, which we see to-day, and will see throughout Canada. Now, the hon. member cites the case of Manitoba. I am not going to dwell on that, I merely say that so far as I am concerned, as a member of this House supporting the government, the question of schools in the province of Manitoba is a settled question. There is no analogy whatever between the conditions of Manitoba and the new provinces which are to be admitted in to the confederation; I say this now, although these are matters which will more properly come up when the Bill is read the second time. But when we per-

mit a province to come into this confederation, we permit it to come in on such terms as this House deems proper and equitable. It was so with the other provinces, and, I presume, will be so with the provinces that are to come in. Mr. Speaker, I only rise to protest against interjections and interruptions by lion, members such as those of the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) who seeks both by his voice in this House and by the newspaper, which, fortunately or unfortunately, he controls, an inflammatorv condition of indignation in the country. I think that, when the Bill is before us and when discussion is proper, then the hon. member for South York can enter any protest he sees fit. But, until' that time, it is much better for the House and the country that we should remain silent on the subject.
Motion (Mr. W. F. Maclean) to adjourn, negatived.



STEAM COMMUNICATION WITH P.E.I.- SNOW BLOCKADE IN MARITIME PROYINCES-DELAY OF MAILS.

Mr. A. A. LEFURGEY (Prince, P.E.I).: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the attention of the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) through the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to the condition of the mail service in Prince Edward Island. I received on Saturday a despatch from a resident of Tignish saying that, in answer to communications addressed to the postmaster of Charlottetown they have received absolutely no information as to the carriage of the mails, and the people throughout the district have now undertaken the service themselves, and the mails have been started by sleighs sent out by private individuals. It seems to me that this is very unsatisfactory, and, I should think, an illegal method of handling the public mails of this country. I will ask the right hon. First Minister to bring this subject to the attention of the Postmaster General and have some inquiry made into it. And, if the train service is so blocked that the mails cannot be brought through by the trains a service should be established by means of sleighs under official auspices, so that His Majesty's mails may not be entrusted to private individuals as they have been.


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Min-of Marine and Fisheries).: I beg leave to communicate to the House a despatch I have just received :
Charlottetown, P.E.I., 27th Feb.
Steamers last crossing twenty-fourth ultimo, ice blockade still continues :	tried dynamite
Pictou barrier Saturday, found useless ; ' Stanley ' unable to get past Cape Bear. No crossing at Capes since twenty-third instant. Boats cannot overcome lolly, broken ice and deep snow ; railway blocked for two weeks.



A. LORD.

[Stage Direction]
Agent.
Henry Robert Emmerson: Apropos the subject raised by my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Lefurgey), I beg to inform the House and the country that the snow-blockade which has for some time existed on the Intercolonial-or that portion of it in the province of Nova Scotia-has been raised. I had communications to-day stating that the trains are now moving in and out of Halifax, and also between Sydney and Truro-so that the road is completely free. The Dominion Atlantic line which is the line running between Halifax and Yarmouth, had been closed for a week or ten days. Even the highways are entirely impassable. With the assistance of the Intercolonial and the using of the appliances of that road, the Dominion Atlantic has been opened up, and trains are now running over it. The blockade, of course has been a very great drawback to the business interests of tlie maritime provinces. Regretful for the past, I shall endeavour to make such arrangements as are possible with the clerk of the weather to prevent a repetition of such a stoppage of Intercolonial trains.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.).: In reference to the question raised by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Lefurgey), I might say that I made representations to the Post Office Department some time ago and was informed that the postmaster at Charlottetown had full power to employ teams to convey the mails when the trains were stalled-full powers to have the mails brought through by any means he thought advisable in the public interest. I have no doubt at all that the postmaster at Charlottetown is using the power intrusted to him to the best of his judgment and ability.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I do not wish to make this a subject of controversy. But, as I have a message from a resident of Tignish. I might read that to the House, and possibly it may satisfy hon. gentlemen as to my position :
Tignish, P.E.I., Feb. 25.
A. A. Lefurgey, M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont'.
Mails started by private individuals without notice. Whear insolently answers. No explanation. Bring up demoralization before orders of day. Agnew wired Yeo to-day.
So, it would appear that the postmaster at Charlottetown had been appealed to in the matter and the people had received no satisfactory explanation of his conduct, and consequently had to use conveyances of private individuals to deliver the mails.



PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.

Mr. HAGGART.: I would ask the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when the Bills establishing the provinces

of Saskatchewan and Alberta will be printed ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I expect they will be printed to-day or to-morrow.


Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice).: The Bills were placed in the hands of the clerk of the House on Thursday last.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 34) respecting the Nicola, Kamloops and Similkameen Coal and Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 33) respecting certain patents of Jean Effront-Mr. L. P. Demers.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 14) respecting the Molson's Bank.-Mr. Ames.
On section 1,
Mr. CAMPBELL.: I may just say that when this Bill was before the committee there was some opposition to it on account of the question not being settled as to whether the shareholders had authorized this change. Since then I have received a telegram from the general manager saying that the shareholders were notified and authorized the change at a special general meeting called for thaj; purpose.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SOVEREIGN FIRE ASSURANCE CO. OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 26) to incorporate the Sovereign Fire Assurance Co. of Canada-Mr. E. F. Clarke.
William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Chairman, before you report the Bill as the hon. Minister of Finance is in his place-and I am very glad to see him here looking so well-I wish to call his attention to the general insurance question, and particularly to the question which has arisen over in the United States.
I am only going to take a moment because I would like to discuss this matter with him later on in the session, but I wish to give him notice to-day that a very serious question has arisen in the United States in regard to life insurance as controlled by private companies. He must know, as every one, I imagine, knows, that it came out the other day in the city of New York that the great Equitable Life Insurance Company of that city, that now controls five hundred millions of money in trust for its policyholders, is absolutely under the control of one man, who, with his family, owns $75,000 of the paid up stock of $100,000 which gives him the control of that company.


John Graham Haggart: It has been pointed out by very important men in the United States and by the great newspapers of the United States that an effort was being made in New York by great capitalists represented by Harriman Gould and the great bond house represented by Mr. Schiff, of New York, to control this company and that they were willing to give $5,000,000 of ready money for the controlling interest in the shares of the Equitable Life. This has proved to be a matter of supreme interest to the people of the United States, that a few men with a very small capital could control the immense reserve fund for the benefit of the policy holders. It is proposed there now-and we will have to do the same thing, we will have to change our insurance laws-to enact that the policy holders shall have a great deal to say in the disposition of these immense trust funds, and I take this opportunity of calling the attention of the minister to it. I trust that, if not this session at a very early date, we will be able to cope with this great question, because if there is one thing of importance in connection with an insurance company it is that the trust moneys which are there for the security of the policy holders ought to have the best possible administration. I do not think the best administration of these funds can be secured when it is possible for their management to fall into the hands of two or three men who by controlling the shares of the proprietary company are free to do what they like with great funds of this kind. It is openly charged by the leading newspapers iB the United States to-day that Harriman and Gould are anxious to get control of the Equitable Insurance Company in order that they may play ducks and drakes with the $500,000,000 of trust money which is the absolute property of the policy holders, in order that they may use it for their great railway propositions, and we are in danger of reaching the same condition in this country. I trust that later on some proper provision will be introduced into our General Insurance Act for the protection of the policy holders.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: The proper protection-snail 1 say the adequate protection-of the moneys which are invested in the hands of the various insurance companies of our country, must always be a question of the utmost importance, and if at any time there may be doubt as to whether our legislation is sufficient on that point I am sure that my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) or any other member would be only doing his duty in bringing the matter before the attention of the House. I hope it will be found, on an examination of the general Insurance law and of the charters of the various companies, that our legislation in Canada is not open to , the objections which might be taken in the case of United States companies. However, if there are some companies as to which * that criticism might be offered, I quite admit

that it is a proper subject for consideration.
I think that, in the main, our insurance legislation, both with regard to the General Insurance Act and to the charters of the various companies, is in a very sound position. If, however, anything can be done to improve it, I am sure as Minister of Finance that I shall be glad to accept suggestions from any part of the House so that so good a purpose may be carried out.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN CANALS CORPORATION.

Right Hon.   S@: CALVERT moved the second reading of Bill (No. 72), to incorporate the Canadian Canals Corporation.


William Findlay Maclean: I would like to have a little information in regard to this Bill. I presented a petition from the county council of the county of York protesting against it, and I would like the hon. gentleman to make a little explanation so that the municipalities, if they are interested, can attend the meeting of the Railway Committee.


Mr. CALVERT.: xMr. Speaker, the promoters of this Bill are asking for an Act permitting them to build a canal and railway combined. It is to commence on the Georgian bay and to cross over to Lake Simcoe, about 1(5 miles. Lake Simcoe is 131 feet higher than Lake Huron, and they intend to build a ship railway to raise the ships that 131 feet. Lake Simcoe is about 25 miles in length and they propose to build a canal about 99 miles in length and then another ship railway, which will be about li miles in length. Lake Simcoe is 466 feet higher than Lake Ontario and by these proportions of railways, together with the canal, they expect to be able to connect the Georgian bay with Lake Ontario, a distance of 72 miles. It is anticipated that it will save about 618 miles in a round trip. The cost is estimated to be about $45,000,000. I would like the Bill to go to the Railway Committee to be discussed there.


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

Mr.   ARCH@: CAMPBELL moved second reading of Bill (No. 76), respecting the Red Deer Valley Railway and Coal Company.


William Findlay Maclean: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if this is our old friend?


Archibald Campbell: Yes, it is a very old friend, a very dear friend.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 73), to incorporate La Compagnie du Chemin de fer Montreal, Quebec et du Sud.-Mr. Gervais.
Bill (No. 74), respecting the Medicine Hat and Northern Alberta Railway Company.- Mr. Talbot.
Bill (No. 75), respecting the Battleford and Lake Lenore Railway Company.-Mr. Lament.
Bill (No. 77), respecting the Canadian Agency.

Mr. Bickerdike.
Bill (No. 78), respecting the Macleod, Card-ston and Montana Railway Company.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 79), respecting the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company.-Mr. Zimmerman.
Bill (No. 80), to incorporate the Woodstock and Lake Huron Railway Company.-Mr. A. H. Clarke.
Bill (81), respecting the Ottawa River Railway Company, and to change its name to the Central Trunk Railway Company.-Mr. Piche.


Mr. CHISHOLM asked :: 1.	When did the Post Office Department begin to guarantee the bonds of the postmasters and mail carriers of the Dominion ?
2.	Are the civil servants in the outside departments, other than the postmasters, dealt with in the same way ?
3.	On what principle is the levy made on the postmasters ?
4.	What amount of money has been collected from the postmasters each year, and what is the total amount up to date 1
5.	What amount' of losses has been sustained by the Post Office Department ; and what has been the total net gain or loss to the Post Office Department ?


Hon. CHAS. HYMAN (for the Postmaster General).: The question doubtless refers to the assessment system inaugurated in 1898 by the department. It does not apply to all civil servants in the outside service of the Post Office Department, but only to employees in city post offices and to railway mail clerks, porters, transfer agents and other civil service employees who are actually engaged in the work of handling the mails. The rate of assessment is forty cents on each one hundred dollars of insurance required. The amount of such insurance is in accordance with the following scale:	Every accounting postmaster, the
revenue of whose office is under $2,000 a year, is required to give security to the extent of $800. Where the revenue exceeds $2,000 a year, but is less than $5,000. the insurance required is $1,200. Where it exceeds $5,000 but is less than $10,000 a year, the insurance required is $1,600. Where it exceeds $10,000 a year but is less than $15,000. the insurance required is $2,000. Where it exceeds $15,000 a year but is less than $25,000, the insurance required is $2,500. Where the revenue exceeds $25,000,

except in the cities of Montreal and Toronto, the insurance required is $3,000. In the case of the cities of Montreal and Toronto the insurance required is $5,000. Each postmaster of a non-accounting post office is required to give $200 security, and if the estimated revenue of his office does not exceed $100 a year, it is optional with him to give bonds or to accept the. assessment system. The assessments since the inauguration of the system have amounted to the following :-
For the year ended 30th June,
1899..	$12,773	48For the 1900 .	year	ended	30th	June,	8,479	93For the 1901..	year	ended	30th	June,	8,930	02For the 1902..	year	ended	30th	June,	10,OSS	52For the 1903. .	year	ended	30th	June,	11.970	25For the 1904..	year	ended	30th	June,	10,891	71For the seven months to 31st January, 1905	215	25

Out of this sum the department has paid in re-insurance and ascertained losses the sum of $19,909.51, leaving a balance of $45,992.68 to the credit of profit and loss account.



CONSUMPTION OF BINDER TWINE.

Mr. SINCLAIR asked :: What proportion of the binder twine consumed in Canada is manufactured (a) in Can-ade ;	(b) in the United States ; (c) in other
countries ?


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: The only way I can answer the question is as follows : The imported binder twine entered for consumption in Canada during the year ended 30th June, 1904, was :
Lbs. Value.
From United States	12,623,608 $1,459,113
From other countries	 4,380	591
The binder twine manufactured in Canada, according to the returns for bounty purposes, from 1st September, 1902, to 30tb June, 1904, was 16,165,048 pounds.



ST. ANGEL HARBOUR.

Mr. PAQUET asked :: 1.	How much was expended last year for the deepening of a harbour at St'. Angel, in the county of Nicolet ?
2.	At the request of whom were those works undertaken ?
3.	Does the government purpose to continue those w-orks ?
4.	What additional amount would be needed to complete the harbour in question ?


Hon. CHAS. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	$11,723.18.


Mr. HYMAN.: 2.	On the report of the assistant engineer of the department.
3.	Yes.
4.	$12,000 will be required to complete the deepening of the channel to 8 feet at low water across the Lake St. Peter's flats, at the mouth of the Nicolet river into Nicolet harbour, and for rip-rapping the jetty protecting the channel through the flats.



INSPECTION OF GAS AND ELECTRICITY AT THREE RIVERS.

Mr. PAQUET asked :: 1.	Who is the inspector of gas and electricity at Three Rivers ?
2.	What salary is attached to that office ?
3.	During the past year how much was the cost of that office, including the expenses of travel ?
4.	To what sum did the receipts during the same period amount ?
5.	Is the inspector supplied with an office and its accessories ?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Inland Revenue) :: 1.	Joseph Ulric Dufresne.
2.	$500.
3.	$65.95.
4.	$128.25.
5.	He has an office in the public buildings at Three Rivers, which is provided with the necessary accessories.



ALEXANDRIA POST OFFICE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACDONELL-by Mr. Ingram-asked :
1.	When was the contract for the new post office at Alexandria, Ontario, let, and when will it be finished and fit for occupation ?
2.	Does the contract specify any date of completion ? If so, when ?
3.	What is the cause of the delay, and who is paying the rent- of the temporary premises, the government or the contractor ?
4.	Who is the contractor ?
Hon. OHAS. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works):: 1.	On the 23rd of October the contract for the erection of the building was completed. The building is expected to be ready for occupation about the 1st of May.
2.	Yes ; the 15th October, 1904.
3.	The delay is due to the contractor. No rent is being paid by this department for post office premises.
4.	Joseph Bourque.



PORT STANLEY HARBOUR.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACDONELL-by Mr. Ingram-asked :
1.	Has the harbour work at Port Stanley been let ? If so, when, and to whom ?
2.	Were tenders called for ?
3.	If so, from whom were tenders received, and what were their amounts ?
4.	Was the lowest tender accepted ?
Hon. CHAS. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	No.

2.	Yes.
3	& 4. Several tenders were received, but as the contract is not yet awarded, it is considered not in the public interest to disclose the amount of the tenders at present.



RONDEAU HARBOUR WORK.

Mr.   MA@: CDONELL-by Mr. Ingram-asked :
1 Has the harbour work at Rondeau been let? If so. when, and to whom ?
2.	Were tenders called for ?
3.	If so, from whom were tenders received, and what were their amounts ?
4.	Was the lowest tender accepted ?


Hon. CHAS. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	Several tenders were received, but as the contract is not yet awarded, it is not considered in the public interest to disclose the amount of the tenders at present.



TORONTO HARBOUR WORKS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACDONELL-by Mr. Ingram

asked :
1.	Were tenders called for on or about the 2nd of November, 1904, for the piling and breakwater at the eastern gap, Toronto harbour ?
2.	If so, how many tenders were received ; who tendered, and what were the amounts of the tenders ?
3.	Was the work then awarded ? If not, what is the reason that the work was declared off, and not then let ?
4.	Were tenders called for the same, or substantially the same, work on or about the 26th January, 1905 ?
5.	How many tenders have been received in response to this last advertisement ?
6.	Is it true that the minister has referred these tenders to the chief engineer ? If so, why ?
7.	Has any tender been accepted ? If not, what is the cause of the delay in awarding the work ?
Hon. CHAS. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Five; but as no contract has been awarded, it is not considered in the public interest to make known the tenderers or amounts.
3.	No ; the price of the lowest tender was considered too high.
4.	Yes.
5.	Five.
6.	Yes ; as he required the opinion of his executive officer on the same.
7.	No ; as further inquiry in the proposed method of doing the work is considered necessary from a public standpoint.



RETURNING OFFICER FOR SELKIRK, MANITOBA.

[Stage Direction]
ill-. NORTHRUP-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	Was the occupation of the returning officer appointed for Selkirk, in the province of Manitoba. in the last Dominion election, at the time of his appointment, that of bar tender ?
2.	If not, what was his occupation ?
Rt.   H@: The information of the government is that the returning officer for Selkirk in the last Dominion election is a clerk.



APPOINTMENT OF JOSEPH LEMIEUX.

Mr. AMES asked :: 1.	Has Joseph Lemieux received an appointment in connection with the lightship service ?
2.	If so, when was he appointed, to what locality was he assigned, and what wages are paid him ?
3.	Did the said Joseph Lemieux, prior to his appointment, make charges against the Quebec agent of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and ask for an investigation of the same ?
4.	Was such investigation granted ?
5.	If so. has any report been brought down ? If not. what was the reason the investigation was not proceeded with ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	Y'es.
2.	26th July, 1904 ; steward in lightship ' Anticosti ' ; wages. $45 per month.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Answered by No. 3.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND FISHERIES.

Mr. ALEX. MARTIN asked :: 1.	To what extent, if any, have the fisheries of Prince Edward Island advanced within the last decade ?
2.	Who are the officers charged with their supervision, and w-hat are their duties and salaries ?
3.	Have anf new ones been appointed ? If so. what are their names, duties and salaries ?
4.	Has the government any plan for the development of the deep-sea fisheries of Canada? If not, why not ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	The value of the fisheries is practically the same.
2.	J. A. Matheson, inspector of fisheries ; salary, $1,200 per year. J. B. Macdonald, assistant inspector ; salary, $1,000 pet-year. W. O. Hobkirk, fishery overseer; salary, $550 per year. John Davison, fishery overseer ; salary, $200 per year. James A. McCormack, fishery overseer; salary, $200 per year.
The duties of the inspector and assistant inspector relate chiefly to the enforcement of the fishery laws. They also direct and control the work of the overseers, and at the end of each season furnish the department with a full and detailed report of the season's fishing operations.
The overseers act under the instructions of the inspector in enforcing the fishery laws.



3.	The assistant inspector is a recent appointment. The remainder of the question is answered by No. 2.
4.	The general policy of the department embraces the development of the deep-sea fisheries.



MOUNT STEWART SHIPPING FACILITIES.

Mr. ALEX. MARTIN asked :: 1.	Have any representations been made to the government in reference to the shipping facilities at Mount Stewart, Prince Edward Island ?
2.	Is the government aware that the wharf accommodation is deficient, and that dredging is needed in order to carry on increasing trade?
3.	Has the government any engineer's report in respect of the condition of this shipping place ?
4.	What does the government intend to do in the premises ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There are no papers to that effect in the department, but orders have recently been given to the district engineer to report at once on the conditions of the harbour.
I



CAPTAIN THOS. THOMPSON.

Mr. INGRAM asked :: 1.	Upon whose recommendation were the services of Captain Thomas Thompson, preventive Qfiicer at Port' Bruce, Elgin county, dispensed with ?
2.	Is his removal from office the result of any neglect of duty on his part ?
3.	If not, what is the cause of his removal from office by the department ?
4.	Is it the intention of the department to appoint a preventive officer at Port Bruce ? If so, when ?


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1.	The services of Thomas Thompson, preventive officer of customs at Port Bruce, were dispensed with by Order in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Customs.
2.	His removal from office was-not on account of any neglect of duty.
3.	He was removed from office because the maintenance of a customs officer at Port Bruce was not considered necessary in the public interest.
4.	It is not the intention of the Customs Department to appoint a preventive officer at Port Bruce.



GRAIN SURVEY BOARDS.

Mr. H. B. AMES (Montreal, St. Antoine) moved :: For copies of all petitions and correspondence between the Boards of Trade of Toronto and Montreal respectively, and the Governor in Council, in reference to the appointment of Grain Survey Boards, under the authority of the Grain Inspection Act, at Toronto and at Montreal ; and for copies of the Orders in Council whereby the aforesaid appointments were made ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: He said :	It is incumbent upon me, Mr. Speaker, to state as briefly as possible, my reasons for asking that an order of this House be issued for the return I have just specified. This House will remember that last session there was passed a Grain Inspection Act. That Act was considerably amended in committee and finally passed. Clause 32 provides for the formation of a Grain Survey board, to be a sort of court of appeal from the decisions of grain inspectors in cases of dispute as to quality. That clause reads as follows :
The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Boards of Trade of Toronto and Montreal respectively, may appoint for any eastern division or district a grain survey board to be composed of such number of fit and qualified persons as in each case may be considered necessary or defined.
Then follows some immaterial matter about the powers of the board, but I want to point out the way in which that clause has been interpreted by the department. That clause was not in the Bill as originally drafted, but was inserted on the demand of the Boards of Trade of Montreal and elsewhere, speaking more particularly for the corn trade associations. About three weeks after this Act was passed, the Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce wrote to the secretary of the Montreal Board of Trade as follows :
The Act of course provides for the recommendation by the Boards of Trade of fit and skilful persons to compose the Grain Survey Board, and the full provisions of the Act must "be complied with before the new Board is in a position to act. Your Board of Trade will do well to make their recommendations so that they may be considered by the Governor in Council'as early as possible.
In conformity with these instructions, and the evident interpretation put upon the law by the Deputy Minister of the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Montreal Board of Trade recommended the appointment of Mr. James Carruthers, retiring president of the Corn Exchange Association, Mr. H. D. Metcalfe, Mr. E. S. Jacques, Mr. C. B. Es-daile, and Mr. A. G. Thompson. At the same time the Toronto Board of Trade, after consultation with the grain people, made ten recommendations, and there were also recommendations made by the Board of Trade of Winnipeg. The government accepted the entire ten names submitted by the Toronto Board of Trade, but did not see fit to accept those sent in by the Montreal Board of Trade excepting three, namely: Messrs. E. S. Jacques, C. B. Esdaile and A. G. Thompson, and saw fit to add three additional names not recommended by the Montreal Board of Trade, thus making a board of six, upon which the Montreal Board of Trade had not even a majority. As soon as this was known in Montreal the members of the Corn Exchange Association met and passed the following resolution :

Resolved, that the Montreal Corn Exchange Association has learned with great surprise that the government has seen fit to disregard in part the nominations made by the Board of Trade for the Grain Survey Board at this port ;
That the Association holds that, according to the inspection law, the nominations of the personnel of said Board rests with the Board of Trade, and it protests against, and resents the action of the government in disregarding the nominations remitted to it ;
That the association protests the more strongly against the said action of the department because there is a strong belief among its members that Messrs. Carruthers and Metcalfe were not recommended by the Department of Trade and Commerce for appointment on the Survey Board because, in fulfilment of the instructions of this Association, they opposed before the parliamentary committee at Ottawa certain clauses of the draft' Bill making the chief inspector's decision final, and that Messrs. Crane and McFee were recommended by the department for appointment for the reason that they opposed before that committee the expressed views of the Association in this regard.
The reason I have moved for the papers is to ascertain whether these resolutions and petitions were presented to the government, and whether the government saw fit to give any explanation to the Corn Exchange Association and the Montreal Board of Trade. The Board of Trade and the Corn Association claim that they were unjustly treated upon two grounds, as they set forth in their resolution. First, upon the legal interpretation of clause 32. I am prepared to admit that that clause is susceptible of divers interpretations, but when it was suggested, as I understand it was by the boards of trade, they supposed it to mean that the recommendations should come from the several boards of trade, and if it means anything else it means what those who suggested the clause did not intend it to. Evidently from the letter of the Deputy Minister of the Department of Trade and Commerce, quotations from which I have read, that was the interpretation put by the government themselves on that clause. The resolution of the Corn Exchange Association points out that they consider themselves aggrieved by the course of the government and pretend that the government did not act legally in the matter. And they base this claim on the fact that the clause makes provision that the appointees shall be those who will be recommended by the Montreal Board of Trade. But they still further protest that certian nominees were unjustly dis criminated against. The five gentlemen who the Montreal Board of Trade recommended were gentlemen who stood very high in the estimation of those interested in the corn trade and the business circles of Montreal. Thev had served on the previous Grain Board and had given every satisfaction. Mr. Carruthers had just laid down his position as president of the Grain Trades Association, and Mr. Metcalfe was a well known and highly respected member of the same 56J
organization. Why these gentlemen should be struck off the list of recommendations and others substituted is at least hinted at by the resolution passed by the Grain Trades Association. They say they have reason to believe that Messrs. Metcalfe and Carruthers were struck from the list because they had the tepierity, on the invitation of the government to come here and make certain strictures on the draft Bill as presented before parliament. And, because they made these strictures, their names were struck from the list of those supposed to be fit and skilful persons to carry the law into effect. They came simply as delegates. They came bearing resolutions passed unanimously-or practically unanimously ; there were two dissentients- by the Grain Trades Association. They came not expecting that such actions would be to them a cause of disappointment or punishment. So, I think some explanation should be given to the commercial circles of Montreal as to these appointments. X would not for a moment be understood as stating that the gentlemen who were appointed by the government were not fit and competent persons for the position. Messrs. Crane, McFee and Morris are thoroughly good men, and that we all admit. But they are in no wise better fitted for the position than are those recommended by the Board of Trade and the Grain Trades Association; and we in Montreal cannot see why the government should discriminate and strike out the names of some who were recommended. As I have stated, in Toronto, the entire ten recommended were accepted; in Winnipeg all those recommended were accepted. I was informed by a gentleman to-day that when Hamilton made recommendations, they were accepted. And we would like to know why Montreal, in this particular case, should have been treated in this exceptional manner.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is no objection to the production of the papers in this matter. They will be brought down at a very early day, because, I believe, they are already in the Department of Trade and Commerce. I would observe, however, that it is impossible for the government to accept the interpretation the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ames) has given of the Act he has quoted. Section 32 of that Act reads as follows:-
32. The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Boards of Trade of Toronto and Montreal respectively, may appoint for any eastern division or district a grain survey hoard composed of such number of fit' and skilful persons as is in each case considered necessary or convenient, and such board shall have the powers

-and so on, 1 understood my hon. friend to say that the government was bound to accept the recommendations which were

made by tlie Board of Trade. I must at once dissent from that interpretation. It cannot be admitted that the government will simply till the part of a mere recording clerk for the Board of Trade. When recommendations are made to the government by the Board of Trade, the government is bound to consider the fitness of the persons proposed, but naturally would accept those recommendations unless there was cause to the contrary. At all events, that is the interpretation we have given to the statute, and I think that interpretation will be accepted by parliament. In this case the recommendations made by Toronto were accepted without dissent. So' were the recommendations made by Winnipeg. But some dissent was expressed to the recommendations made by the Montreal Board of Trade. I do not mean that the fact that Messrs. Carruthers and Metcalfe were passed over would indicate anything against those gentlemen. I do not think it would be fair to imply or accept anything of that kind. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce informs me that these gentlemen have been passed over for good and sufficient reasons, which will appear upon the face of the papers when they are brought down.



STEAMSHIP&quot; COLD STORAGE-THERMOGRAPH RECORDS.

Mr. HENDERSON (Halton) moved :: For copies of all thermograph records of temperature taken on board Atlantic steamships during the calendar year 1903, stating :	(1)
name of steamship ; (2) date when thermograph was put in chamber ; (3) date when the steamer left the report ; (4) whether chamber was (a) cold storage ; (b) cool air ; (c) mechanically ventilated ; (d) ordinary, or whether the record was taken on deck or other place where the natural temperature of the air -would be registered, unexposed to the sun's rays ; (5) where practicable, in what part of the chamber the thermograph was placed.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is no objection to the motion, but I understand that it will take a very long time to prepare this return.


David Henderson: This information was moved for last year, and was brought down. But it is not in the possession of the clerk of routine and records-it is not available to members of the House. I am under the impression that the whole matter is in the hands of the Department of Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. A. MARTIN (Queen's) moved :: For a return showing in detail all the collections for freight and storage at Sydney In-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
tercolonial Railway station for 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903 and 1904 ; giving the names of shippers and consignees ; a description of the merchandise ; where from ; weight of each package : the amount received for storage, and from whom. Also a reference to the authority under which storage has been collected ; the rate, and by whom fixed. Also any refunds for freight and storage, and to whom paid.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am informed by the Railway Department that, it is not customary to furnish such information as is asked for by this motion. It involves private business. Moreover, I am informed it will take almost a year to prepare such a return. I would advise my liou. friend (Mr. A. Martin) to allow the matter to stand and have a conference with the Minister of Railways. Perhaps the minister can give the hon. gentleman the information he wants.


Alexander Martin: The reason I have moved for this return is that I have received letters from parties, who complain that there is discrimination in freight and storage charges, some parties being charged more than others. I do not know any other way to get that information. If the order is too large, perhaps we might shorten it by makiug it apply only to one year.


Wilfrid Laurier: If my hon. friend were to have a conference with the Minister of Railways, perhaps they could agree upon a form in which the motion could be carried.
On motion of Mr. Clements, the debate was adjourned.



BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.

Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette) moved :: For copies of all petitions, memorials and resolutions from the legislative assembly of Manitoba, the executive of that province, and any correspondence relative to the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba to the west or north.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would ask my hon. friend not to move this to-day. The correspondence is not complete yet, but it may be completed next Monday. Allow it to stand.


William Findlay Maclean: If any correspondence is received between now and then, will that be included ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose we will have it before the discussion of the Bills ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not see any connection at all between the Bill now before the House and this question regarding the province of Manitoba, I cannot see that they have any relation whatever. It is intended to have the correspondence complete as soon as possible, probably this week.


William Findlay Maclean: Is it not a fact that the province of Manitoba has asked some of this very territory which it is now proposed to include in Saskatchewan ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: I think therefore the question is pertinent.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think it is, because the legislature of the Northwest Territories has passed a resolution against such a grant of their territory.


William James Roche: They have also passed a resolution favouring the incorporation of a portion of that territory in the province of Manitoba.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, and I can inform my hon. friend that this territory is not at all included in the boundaries of Saskatchewan.


John Graham Haggart: The right hon. gentleman has introduced this very subject in his speech introducing the Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly, I introduced it to say that we could not grant the prayer of the province of Manitoba, because the province of Manitoba asked for a certain portion of the territories under the jurisdiction of the Northwest legislature, and the legislature had refused to grant such territory. At the same time, I stated there was a portion of territory north of Lake Winnipegosis and Lake Manitoba as to which the legislature had expressed no objection to granting it to Manitoba. But we have reserved this, it is not included in the boundaries of the new province. Therefore it has no relation at all.


William Findlay Maclean: I still hold that Manitoba has an interest in the territories to the west, which are still territories and not provinces. Manitoba has been looking forward all along to acquiring them, and I believe the Minister of the Interior has made statements to that effect, that some day Manitoba might look forward to including a portion of the territory of Saskatchewan. I think correspondence of that character is in the possession of the government, and we ought to have it in connection with the new Bill.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Stand.



COLD STORAGE OF FISH.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ALEXANDER MARTIN moved for :
A return showing the number and location, cost and earnings, of the cold storage establishments called ' bait freezers,' of maritime Canada ; together with the returns, duly certified, of all such institutions, since 1900 ; the names and the salaries of all superintendents, officials and keepers of same ; and the amounts iu pounds of the different kinds of fish therein stored ; the amount of bait from them used by bona fide fishermen, and the names of the same; together with all such information as may permit of the thorough examination of the question of government assisted refrigerators.
Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I must inform the hon, gentleman (Mr. A. Martin) that some of the documents he asks for cannot be laid on the table. I am informed that the names of the fishermen are not on record. I do not know what the latter part of his motion means. Of course, the government has no objection to producing whatever papers can be produced, but the latter part of his motion cannot be complied with. I might suggest to the hon. gentleman that he call at the Department and indicate what papers he desires to obtain. The Department will furnish him with a list of those that can be produced. Let the motion stand in the meantime.



MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.

[Stage Direction]
For a copy of the report of Mr. Matheson relating to the alleged fraud iu payment of fishing bounties.-Mr. Ganong.
For copies of all correspondence, letters, reports, petitions, memoranda, in possession of the government, or any member or official thereof, relating to the location and erection of a railway station at Grand View, on the Murray Harbour branch of the Prince Edward Island Railway-Mr. A. Martin.
For a return showing the total number of officers, civil engineers and other employees now engaged iu the surveys of the Transcontinental Railway, and works connected therewith, under the Transcontinental Railway Construction Commission ; the name and place of residence of each of the above persons at the time of his appointment ; and the functions and salaries of each of the above.-Mr. Gervais.
For a return showing the business done in the Exchequer Court of Canada, under its admiralty Jurisdiction, since the Admiralty Act of 1891 came into force ; giving by districts, (1) the number of actions instituted ; (2a) the number of interlocutory applications, and (b) trials ;	(3) the amount involved.-Mr. A. H.
Clark.

[Stage Direction]
House again iu committee on Bill (No. 10) respecting Labour Union Labels.
On section 7,
Hugh Guthrie: When this Bill was last in committee, the question was on an amendment proposed by the hon. member for St. John and Iberville (Mr. L. P. Demers), to the effect that the word ' incorporated ' should be inserted in subsection A of subsection 1 of the Act. That motion was not disposed of at the time the committee rose and asked leave to sit again. I would like to draw attention to that clause of the Bill before it is passed over, or before any other clause is taken up. Now objection was taken seriously by many members that a labour union or association acquiring rights under this Bill to register trade marks or designs of their own, were not amenable to the common law, or to the

1772'
law of the land, statutory or otherwise. The hon. member for St. John and Iberville cited in support of his contention the case known as the Metallic Roofing Company of Canada vs. The Local Union No. 30 Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers, International Association, and others, which is reported in the Ontario Law Reports, volume 5, 1903. In that case it was certainly held by the Chief Justice, Sir William Meredith, that under the title of the Local Union No. 30 Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers, the union could not be sued. That case however went to .the Court of Appeal, where it was dealt with on the 23rd of January last, and the Court of Appeal distinctly held, in the case reported in the 'Ontario Weekly Reporter' of February 7th, 1905, at page 35, that while the union might not be sued under its title of Metallic Roofing Union, still it could be sued in a representative action ; taking for instance the executive committee of the union and suing them on behalf of themselves or of all the members of the union. The decision of the Court of Appeal in Ontario in this respect is fully borne out by the case cited by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) in introducing this motion, the case commonly known as the Taff Vale case, reported in 1 Appeal Cases, 1901. The learned law lords who decided it held that the union could be sued whether registered or unregistered, and I assume that registration in England is equivalent to incorporation in this country. For instance, Lord Macnaghten in deciding that case says :
I have no doubt whatever that a trades union, whether registered or unregistered, may be sued in a representative action if the persons selected as defendants are persons who from their position may be taken fairly to represent the body.
The judgment of Lord Lindley in the same matter reads as follows :
I have, myself, no doubt whatever that if the trades union could not be sued in this case in its registered name, some of its members (its executive committee) could be sued, on behalf of themselves and the other members of the society, and an injunction and damages could be obtained in a proper case in an action so framed.
I maintain therefore that whether registered or unregistered, incorporated or unincorporated the union is amenable to the laws of the land. There is no association, no union or no individual who can escape liability merely by means of the assumption of a name not registered or not incorporated. It is so in reference to many other associations. Take an ordinary club, a hockey club, a cricket club, a sporting club or a club of any kind unregistered and unincorporated ; surely no one will argue that the law of the land cannot reach the membership of such a club in an ordinary action for damages or an action of tort or contract. They are all amenable to the law and the Mr. GUTHRIE.
law will reach the members of any trades union. I might call the attention of the House to the fact that in the first section of this Bill the expression ' labour union ' means ' any and every association of working men or of working women, or of working men and working women.' Two or more people may form such an association. All they would have to do would be to associate themselves either in writing or verbally, but, I suppose, for more precision it would be an association with some articles of agreement in writing. What does the Bill ask ? The Bill asks that such an association be allowed to designate its own work. That is all. Employers have their trade marks and their registered designs. They apply them to their goods. They have property in these trade marks and these designs, but the labour union or organization asks for no such privilege. It simply asks that a stamp be placed on the articles manufactured to show that this article has been manufactured by a certain class of labour. That cannot deteriorate the value of the goods and the label cannot be placed on the goods without the consent of the manufacturers. There is a clause which I may say is somewhat objectionable in the Bill as drafted. It is the clause to which attention was called by the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart)-clause 10. That reads as follows :
Nothing in this Act contained shall enable any suit, action, garnishee, interpleader or other proceeding to be brought, had or maintained against a labour union, except for the purposes of this Act.
I do not think that clause, when properly read, is of any force or effect whatever. It gives no power to the union nor to any individual to seek redress against the union and I believe that the Bill would meet all that is asked for if that clause were eliminated. In consultation with various members of the Dominion Trades Congress they have stated to me that they will be quite satisfied if that clause of the Bill is eliminated. The elimination of that clause will do away with any question as to their liability or responsibility in a suit. I look upon this matter as a simple request from a large body of the working people of this country to have a designation of their own placed upon the goods which they make. Their object, in the first place, is certainly to determine their own goods. Their object in the second place is to prevent fraudulent labels being placed upon goods to deceive the public or to deceive themselves with the idea that these goods have been made under what we know as uDion conditions. There are people who will buy goods made by union labour and none other and they have the right to do so if they so desire. It enables those people to protect themselves in their purchases. The statement emanating from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. which has been supplied to all

members, probably, of this House, to the effect that no fraudulent labels exist is untrue because fraudulent labels are placed on goods. I do not know who places them there, but I have seen several fraudulent labels that have been taken from goods and which were placed there to lead the public to believe that the goods were manufactured under union conditions, probably that they might meet with a more ready sale, when, as a matter of fact, the goods were made under non-union conditions. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the question of incorporation is not a question which we have to deal with in this Bill at all. There is an Act of this parliament, chapter 131, of the Ite-vised Statutes of Canada, which provides for the reigstration of trade unions known as the Trades Union Act. Some unions have become registered under that Act, but that Act does not in any way involve or affect the question which arises in the present Bill. This Act was passed in order to legalize certain transactions or agreements between certain members of the labour unions and their employers, which, but for this Act might have been looked upon as Acts against public policy and therefore void in the eye of the law. In order to meet that condition of things this Trades Union Act was passed, but this Trades Union Act or the registration under it is not at all affected or brought into the discussion of the Bill now before the committee. In reading the clauses of that Act you will find it applies to the funds of the union, to the property which they may hold and to actions which may be brought against them in respect of the property they may hold, but to say they should be registered under this Act or incorporated, as the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) says, is to my mind ail unnecessary provision. There is no provision in the Act for incorporation. There is no provision in any Act I know of for the incorporation of these unions. The unions do not ask for incorporation. They are now amenable to the law. Then why not grant them the small request which they ask, to place a label designating their own work upon the goods which they manufacture, which label can only be placed there with the consent of the employees. I am most heartily in sympathy with this measure, I think it should be passed without amendment, and that there should be no condition of registration or incorporation attached to it. There is no necessity for such a condition : it only makes the law more cumbersome, more expensive, more involved for the unions who make a very very simple request to have their own labour properly designated.
- Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON. There is one thing to which I desire to call the attention of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) who has just taken his seat. He has said that labour unions are not incorporated and do
not seek incorporation; I desire to know what particular unions he refers to. Does he speak of the Dominion at large or of one particular province?


Hugh Guthrie: I know of no unions which are incorporated and which use labels. In fact I know of none which are incorporated unless they are registered under that Act in Canada.


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: The object of my observation was to point out to my hon. friend that in Nova Scotia they have a labour union which has been in existence for a great many years, which has probably a better record than any other labour union in the whole Dominion-and I say this without any disparagement to the record of any other labour union-I refer to the Provincial Workmen's Association, to which nearly all miners engaged in coal mining in Nova Scotia and many others as well belong. This is an incorporated body; it has been incorporated for many years and not only is the parent order incorporated but nearly all the various lodges throughout the province of Nova Scotia are incorporated bodies in accordance with the laws of Nova Scotia. These are the facts so far os my own province, with which I am more particularly familiar, in matters respecting labour administration is concerned.


Charles Fitzpatrick: For the sake of information I would ask the meaning of the provision here in subsection 3. We have the yvords :
The expression minister means the Minister of Agriculture

I would like to know the meaning of the other words, included in the section.

and does not include the deputy minister
unless herein expressly provided.
Why are these words added?
Mr, RALPH SMITH. I do not see any object in the words myself. I was looking over the section and I think they could be eliminated.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think that would be better.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Mr. Demers (St. John and Iberville) moves to add the words at clause 1, ' duly incorporated.' The clause would then read :
The expression labour union means any and every association of working men or of working women or of working men and working women, duly incorporated.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has given us to understand that the unions at the present time are amenable to the law. If so, what would be the objection to their being incorporated ?


Hugh Guthrie: The only objection is that incorporation causes trouble and expense, and the unions do not ask to be incorporated. if they are amenable to the law, as I submit they are now, there is no object in incorporating them. They can be sued, their property seized and sold, and in the well known case of Krug and the Labour Union Committee at Berlin, they have been restrained by injunction. I maintain that all bodies are amenable to the law whether registered or incorporated or not.


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: The statement of the .Minister) of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick when the Bill was being considered in committee had, I have no doubt, something to do with prejudicing the minds of the members of the House. At page 709 of * Hansard,' in answer to a question by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) the minister said :
I must confess that I have looked only somewhat hastily over this Bill and I should be glad now if the promoter would point out to me any similar legislation in any country. There is no such legislation that I know of anywhere, and there are some provisions which it' would be my duty to oppose when we reach them.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I made a statement on the s econd reading of this Bill that there were 41 states in the union that had legislation on this question. I did not make that statement without knowing that it was correct, but I have taken the trouble to go over the whole of the statutes of the different states and I have compiled a list, because it is a very important thing to know that for this legislation there is a precedent in so many states of the union. I find that my original statement was correct. The Minister of Justice may at any time see copies of the statutes which I have in my desk. Some of these have been enacted since 18S8, and are actually operated to-day on the very principle of the provisions of this Bill. Another thing is that in not one of these states where' this same legislation is operative, are the unions compelled to incorporate. There is no provision at all for their incorporation; in fact there is special provision in the state laws against the necessity for the incorporation of trades unions. I submit that the statement 1hat if it was agreed that there was no such legislation in any other part of the world it would prejudice the consideration of this Bill. That is a great mistake as I have said. I have a list before me of similar Acts of the states of Alabama, California, Arizona, Colorado. Kentucky, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas. Louisiana, Maine, Maryland. Michigan, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York. Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon. Pennsylvania. Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Virginia, Wisconsin. These laws art all operative under the very provisions of this legislation that we are now asking this House to pass, and in not one of these state laws is there any provision for incorporation. I mention that because I have no doubt that many members were anxious, and I think that the minister or any member of the House was perfectly right in wanting to know whether such legislation exists.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Is the hon. gentleman sure that the organizations in the states he has named do not register under the State Laws ?


Ralph Smith: There is a special provision in the Bill that it shall apply to unions unincorporated. I have made investigation into this matter and I presented this case to the men interested in this legislation. They do not want me to support this amendment; they do not see why they should not have the right to register a label without being compelled to enter into an incorporation, and I will be compelled to vote against this amendment.


John Graham Haggart: I was listening attentively to the observations of the hon. gentlemen opposite. The evident object of^the Bill, although I have not paid much attention to it. is to incorporate a body of men for a specific purpose; for the sole and only object of having a label. The hon. member says they are liable anyway under the common law. That is true. If a dozen or two individuals own a political paper in a county town and do not choose to incorporate, they are all liable to any person who brings an action against them; but how would you like to bring an action against five or six hundred members of a labour union or association?


Ralph Smith: Bring the action against the officers.


John Graham Haggart: You cannot bring an action against the officers.


Ralph Smith: It has been done repeatedly.


John Graham Haggart: If the objection to incorporation is the cost, why not register the association, which will cost only $2 or $5.
I do not know what the object of the Bill is entirely ; but we all agree that if there is any benefit in the union label, the possessors of that label should receive the benefit; but we do not intend to give them the benefit if they cannot be made liable under any counter action. Clause 10 of the Bill provides that nothing in this Act shall enable any suit to be brought against a labour union except for the purposes of this Act.


Ralph Smith: We are willing to strike that out.


John Graham Haggart: It may be, as the hon. gentleman states, that there is legislation

of this kind in thirty different states of the union ; but let him be certain that there is not in those states some simple system of registration or incorporation which may render unions liable. It seems anomalous legislation to give a union corporate entity for one purpose only-the purpose of owning and using a label. That is the objection I have to the Bill. I have no objection at all to the members of labour unions receiving the benefit of their skilled work, and drawing the attention of the public to it by using a label, but let them be in the position of all other corporations of being liable.


Charles Fitzpatrick: When this Bill was under consideration before, I confessed my ignorance of any similar legislation in any other part of the world. I appreciate the fact that the hon. gentleman who introduced this Bill stated that there were thirty-one states in the union in which similar legislation existed ; he also stated that there was similar legislation in England. I cannot profess to be familiar with the laws of the various states of the union ; but as his statements surprised me somewhat. I asked him to be good enough to give me some reference to the states where I could find similar legislation. He did not do so ;* but I find in a report of the labour bureau of Washington a statement of the labour laws of the different states. I have not examined the legislation closely ; but my impression, which is confirmed by the very book which my hon. friend has sent to me, is that in all of these states registration is necessary. My hon. friend says that a union can be sued through any member of the union ; but my hon. friend is aware that there is no such thing as a representative action in any province where the civil law prevails ; and, moreover, there is no known system of law under which a representative action can be taken in a penal case. If there is a penalty, there cannot be a representation ; it is contrary to the most elementary principle of criminal law. It seems to me that it was agreed, when this question was last considered, that the Bill should be made applicable to all incorporated associations and unions, and that it was allowed to stand , over in order that I might amend those sections which would need to be amended in order to make it apply only to such. It has been said that there are no incorporated unions, but I know that the ship labourers' union of Quebec is incorporated.


Mr. DUNCAN ROSS.: Does not tjje law of Indiana distinctly include unions, whether incorporated or unincorporated ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have not seen that, but I find a paragraph requiring a statement to be filed with the Secretary of State, and requiring the persons who seek to file the registration to give the name of the union and the name of the chief official
connected with it. Protection is provided for by those who may be improperly dealt with as a result of that legislation. It does not seem to me that there is anything of that sort in the Bill we have here.


Hugh Guthrie: I submit there is sufficient protection in this Bill.


John Graham Haggart: What is the meaning of the word ' company ?'


Hugh Guthrie: Voluntary association. The law of the state of New York does not provide in any way for incorporation. It says that a union or association of employees may adopt a device in the form of a label, &c., for the purpose of designating the proregistration or incorporation. It does not provide for registration. The law of Kansas is almost identical. There is nothing in it about registration or incorporation. It provides that whenever any association or union of workingmen have adopted for their protection any label or trade mark announcing that the goods to which such labels are attached were manufactured by the members of such association or union, it shall be unlawful for any corporation to counterfeit of imitate such labels or trade marks. There is nothing there about incorporation or reg istration.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is it not a fact that in that very state no association can have any legal existence unless registered?


Hugh Guthrie: I have looked into that very question and I failed to find anything to compel any union or association to register. -


Duncan Ross: Let me read the law of Indiana :
The label, wrapper, mark, name, brand, stamp or device used or intended to be used by any union or association of workingmen or women, or both, whether incorporated or unincorporated, for the purpose*of designating such goods or merchandise as are the products of the labour of the members of such union or association, may be registered, as provided in this Act, and receive the protection herein provided for.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 7, 8 and 9 carried.
Section 10 struck out.
Section 11 and 12 carried.
On section 13, label not to be attached without consent of owner of goods.
Charles Smith Hyman: I move that this clause be amended by inserting the words ' in writing ' after the word 'consent' in the'third line.
Section as amended agreed to.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Merely for information I would ask the promoter of the Bill what is meant by the sixth clause?


Ralph Smith: When the Bill was put into my hands tins clause was not

drafted. I explained to the men who wanted this legislation that perhaps a union, which had agreed with a company that a certain label should be used, might subsequently have difficulties with the company, and the company would have large quantities of stock on hand marked with that label. The manufacturer might not then be able to sell his goods unless this provision were put in for his protection. This protects his business from being interfered with on that account.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In the event of an agreement being made between the employees and the manufacturers, that in consideration of their giving him the use of a label he should give them increased wages or shorter hours and they should subsequently withdraw his right to use the label, his obligation to pay the increased wages or give the decreased hours would continue.


Ralph Smith: When a manufacturer enters into an agreement with a union the contract is a voluntary one and the manufacturer must provide for his protection when the contract is made.
Bill reported.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: When shall the Bill be read the third time ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Now.


Some hon. MEMBERS: At the next sitting of the House.


Mr. LENNON.: It cannot be read the third time now.


Ralph Smith: Has the hon. member (Mr. Lennox) any objection ?


Haughton Lennox: Certainly I have.


Ralph Smith: Let him state his objection.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If there is objection taken the Bill cannot be read the third time.


John Graham Haggart: Is the committee, stage a stage of the Bill, or are the committee and third reading one stage ?


Hon. PETER WHITE.: With reference to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, of course, I do not desire to call it in question at all, but I would point out to the House that the third reading of a Bill may be taken upon the same day upon which it is considered in Committee of the Whole, provided the House so decides. If the House decided that the third reading should be given to-day, that could be done.


William Findlay Maclean: It does not require unanimous consent ?


Peter White: That is the point.


Wilfrid Laurier: The rule is that two stages cannot be taken on the same day except by unanimous consent, but the committee stage is not a stage.'


Ralph Smith: 


Peter White: What I wish to point out is that a Bill must have three separate readings on different days. But, when the committee stage is taken, the third reading may be taken when the House so decides. That is, the fact that a member objects does not prevent the third reading.


Haughton Lennox: But a member can object and have the question voted on..


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Perhaps the matter had better be dealt with in that way.
Mr. RALPH SMITH moved the third reading of the Bill.


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

[Stage Direction]
House went into Committee on Bill (No. 2), to amend the Railway Act, 1903.-Mr. Lancaster.
On section 1,
1. Section 227 of the Railway Act, 1903, ia amended by striking out the word ' or ' in the third line and substituting therefor the word ' and,' and by adding after the word ' expedient* at the end of the section the words ' but where-ever in any such portion of a city, town or village a railway crosses a highway at rail-level, the said speed of ten miles an hour shall in no event be exceeded, unless the company provides, by a watchman or gates at such crossing, protection against approaching trains for persons using the highway.'
lion. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice). This Bill was referred, at my request, the last time it was before the House, to the Railway Committee. I understand it was considered there and that the committee reported against it. I cannot see how the House can do otherwise than support the committee.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not think the House is bouud to support the committee, particularly if the committee did not do what was quite right in the matter. I might point out, to begin with, that the Bill did not go to the Railway Committee by the unanimous consent of the House. Several of us on this side protested and I think, rightly protested, that measures to change the public laws of the country should be dealt with on the floor of this House. Bills proposed by the government or by anybody with whom the government are in sympathy, or with whose legislation they are in sympathy, are dealt with on the floor of the House. Take for instance the Bill that has just passed. No one suggested that that should go to any committee. The Minister of Agriculture is the minister mentioned in the Bill, but no one suggested that it should go to his department for consideration. And quite right ; the Bill should be dealt with on the floor of this House. I will point out also that this House has never dealt with the merits of this Bill. Last ses-

sion it dealt with a Bill something like this, but more objectionable in the opinion of the railroads and the people supporting them. This Bill has not been dealt with, but was referred, against the arguments of those who promote it, to the Railway Committee. And it has been dealt with there, as those who opposed the sending of it there expected it would be, in a very curt and careless way. I think I can convince the minister that no such respect as he seems to think should be had for this Railway Committee in regard to a public Bill of this kind. And. the first reason is that, though the counsel for the railways acknowledged that an amendment to the law should be made, it was not made by the Railway Committee. Mr. Chrysler, for whom we waited for three weeks to come before that committee and tell us why this Bill ought not to pass, admitted, as proposed in the first part of this section, that the word ' or ' should be struck out and the work * and ' inserted. Yet, the Railway Committee did not do this. They did, I suppose, what they thought they were expected to do, and decided to report against the Bill. The government sent the Bill there, and I suppose the committee thought they sent it for that purpose. I am within the judgment of hon. members who were present in that committee when I say that the counsel for the railways made a very poor argument in support of the case of the railways and against the people, and that he was obliged to concede that the word in the section should be ' and,' not ' or.' That arose in this way :	The Act provides that the
track shall be fenced or protected. Everybody knows that it should be both fenced and protected, because the Supreme Court has decided-as hon. members have heard stated pretty often-that ' fencing ' is fencing against adjoining owners, and has nothing to do with the highway. The section here proposed is to preserve the rights of travellers upon the highway-if the word 'traveller' is the right word to use;-the people who are properly, and in the exercise of their just rights, using the highway. 'Fencing' has nothing to do with this. It would have to do -with protecting the track along the property of adjoining owners, with a view to keeping cattle off the tracks. The counsel for the railways had to frankly admit-if that can be called a frank admission which is dragged out of one-that the law ought to be changed, that this had nothing to do with fencing at the highway, and that even if there was an order of the Railway Commission for the protection of the highway, the railway companies could evade it because they have to fence ' or ' protect, not fence ' and ' protect. They have to fence against adjoining owners and then protect as the Railway Commission orders. I hope we shall not be obliged to confuse the two matters covered by this section. We ought to consider separately the first portion and strike out the word ' or ' and insert the
word ' andX do not know whether the minister would desire me to go on with the discussion of the other matter, or whether he will consent to deal at once with what I have suggested.
Mr. FITZPATRICIv. I think the matter was referred to in the committee and was discussed, though I was not present in the committee. But I would like to see the decision of the committee approved of by the House.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What the committee did was this : One gentleman after another spoke on the measure, there was a full hearing, and in the course of his remarks Mr. Chrysler made that admission. Then the chairman of the Railway Committee said, let us discuss the rest of the Bill first. Finally the chairman of the committee put the question as to whether the preamble should be adopted, some of us said, yes and some said, no, and he thinking that more said no than said yes, and the yeas and nays being called for, the preamble was declared lost. Then the committee reported here that they recommended that the Bill be not passed. I am not finding fault with what the committee did on that point of changing " or " to " and " in the way they had the Bill before them. But what I insist on is that public Bills should be dealt with in this XIouse and not sent to this committee, which is a mere cul de sac, as X have said, a place that leads nowhere. The fact that we went into Committee of the House upon this Bill to-day without any order having been made about it on the paper, is proof of what I say that public Bills must be dealt with on the floor of this House. However, I do not want to be discourteous to the Minister of Justice, but I am saying what I said in the Railway Committee. But the Minister of Justice seems to think that simply because a committee reported against this Bill we should adopt that report. Let me ask him where that will put us. Parliament requires that public Bills affecting the laws of the country shall be dealt with in committee, in Committee of the Whole House prirna facie. Now what is the use of sending a Bill to a special committee and then to sit here like so many wooden men, and say that we have nothing to do-with it, having sent it to a committee- it is true, it is not the right place to send it, but we thought there was a special reason why it should go there, being a Bill affecting railway corporations, we thought they had a right to be heard, and so we sent it there that the committee might have plenty of opportunity to know what the railways thought about it. But having done that, we must now sit still in this House and adopt the report made by that committee and never scan it at all. Let me point out this to the Minister of Justice, very little attention is paid to these public Bills when they go into the Railway Committee, because

everybody knows that the Bill is going to be slaughtered when it gets there. In the Railway Committee twenty-three members voted for this Bill and sixty-one voted against it. not half the Railway Committee, not one-third of this House, not one-third of the members of this House voted against this Bill. The Minister of Justice may say. why did only twenty-three vote for it ? Let me tell him that more than twice as many voted against sending it to the Railway Committee, the members of this House did not want it to go to the Railway Committee, and a good many more of them voted that we Should not send it to the Railway Committee than bothered about attending to it in the Railway Committee.
Now what is this V This is changing a public law. The argument against this Bill in the Railway Committee was limited to this; when counsel for the railways thought that we should deal with every individual case separately and on its merits, on the ground that the individual cases were distinct. that no two were alike. You would have had to deal separately with each question of a railway crossing. You would have thought from his argument that this Bill applied to all railway crossings in Canada, while as a matter of fact it is limited to a very small proportion of railway crossings. But the secret of the matter is this : The Railway Commission sits there as a court deciding these cases as a judge would, and the municipality is put to the expense of a law suit with regard to every crossing. The railways know very well that municipalities will therefore make as few applications as they possibly can. More than that, the cat was let out of the bag by the gentleman appearing on behalf of the railways when he said that my Bill was mischievous because it made the company pay the expense of this protection, even if it was necessary, Miseliiet ous ! Mischievous foi" any representative of the people in this House to contend that when a railway creates a dangerous condition which did not exist until the railway went there, the railway should be at the expense of minimizing that danger as much as possible. That is the sort of language we hear in the Railway Committee. No lion, gentleman in this House would dare to say it was mischievous legislation. But the counsel employed by the railway companies who go to that committee, where we are sent against our will, when we are advocating a change of the law in the interests of the people says that the legislation is mischievous. When we ask him wherein the mischief lies he says because it puts all the expense upon the company. He does not conceive that the municipalities suffer any injury at all. My Bill is limited to tracks running on a rail level, my Bill is limited to cases where danger is created by the company. The municipalities are the original proprietors, the railway company is [DOT]only a licensee paying no rent to the rnuni-


Edward Arthur Lancaster: cipality. Prirna facia, the municipality has a right to that highway, they use it for public purposes. My Bill however was limited to cases where danger is created by the company, who have the option if they'wish, but think they ought not to be put to this expense, of making a bridge or of passing underneath through a tunnel. But because it is of more expense to them to go over by a bridge or underneath through a tunnel, and because they wish to avoid that greater expense, they characterize as mischievous the legislation proposed by an hon. member of this House making them liable for the danger they create. We are told it is mischievous to say that a railway should be held responsible for a danger that did not exist before the railway went there, notwithstanding that the railway is allowed to run freely in the interests of colonization, notwithstanding that the municipality is not allowed to say whether it shall cross their highway or not-realizing that in the interest of the country you must allow them to run on a level, more or less. If they run on the level, it is because it is to their own interest, and because they can run there for nothing, without being at the expense of making bridges or tunnels, and having a law changed which existed since 1857, and which involved the principle of declaring that in this particular class of cases they shall not exceed ten miles an hour without furnishing protection. Yet when anybody goes there and says this principle should be put into practice, this legislation should be passed-because by a decision of the Supreme Court it amounts to nothing as it stands-the argument of the Minister of Railways opposing this measure in the Railway Committee was that it was not necessary to have this amendment-he did not say so, but his argument was that the section was not necessary. His argument was that it was not necessary to have this section, He said that the Railway Commission, under other sections of the Railway Act, can deal with these matters as individual cases and that it is not necessary to deal with the thickly peopled portions of cities, towns and villages where the track runs at the level of the highway as a general thing. But, while he said that he did not suggest striking out the section. The section which I am amending says that there should be a different state of affairs in respect to thickly peopled portions of cities, towns and villages. The section that I seek to amend reads as follows, and there has been a provision of this nature in the law since 1857 :
No train shall pass in or through any thickly peopled portion of any city, town or village, at a speed greater than ten miles an hour, unless the track is fenced or properly protected in the manner prescribed by this Act.
In 1903, we added some words to make sure that the Railway Commission would still have power which they have under the

17S6
other sections of the Act. By the other sections of the Act. as pointed out by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, the Railway Commission can deal with all these cases individually and he suggested- and counsel for the railways made the same suggestion-that they could deal with a certain class of cases that might be more dangerous than others. But, it never struck the hon. minister that I am now dealing with a certain class of cases of a peculiarly dangerous character, and that my proposed legislation is limited to these cases. Since 1S57. parliament has thought that there should be a limitation imposed in regard to thickly peopled portions of cities, towns and villages. The Supreme Court, having decided that fencing meant fencing against adjoining owners of the track and that that was enough where the Railway Commission had not ordered a special protection. it is open to some of us in this House to provide either that the Supreme Court decision shall no longer apply, but that there shall be some general protection provided in the class of cases mentioned in the section. something that you do not have to go to the Railway Commission for particularly, or else strike out the section. If I believed what the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals contends for. I would move to strike out that section. But I do not admit that we should not have that special protection without having to ask for it in every case from the Railway Commission, and therefore I want to amend the section and make it practicable. If I am wrong in my view, this section should be struck out because in the view of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals it is not necessary for the reason that you can get all you want individually from the Railway Commission, that having put into the Act some other sections which give you the power to go to the Railway Commission and get a special order in these particular cases you do not need this particular law. You do need it if you are not going to have a special suit against every railway in every case. Things are said in the Railway Committee by counsel for the railways that no one would say in this House. It was said there that all you had to do was to write a letter and the Railway Commission to make a special order in some particular case and they would make it. The Railway Commission have not been very well organized since they were established. They have not broken their backs in getting away with the work that has been put upon them since 1903. They have not made a great deal of progress in dealing with matters before them but they have made enough progress to issue a lot of hard and fast rules governing every poor man who goes there to get his rights. You cannot approach them under these rules which I hold in my hand unless you come according to the etiquete there laid
down and yet we listened in the Railway Committee of this House to such statements as this : All you have to do is to write a letter. The rules of the High Court of Justice of Ontario are no more technical than these are. You have to state your claim in the same way, you have to prove service, wait for an answer and reply to that answer. You have the Exchequer Court practically so far as practice goes and in so far as every one of these crossings is concerned. Then, it is stated that there should be some rights in regard to this particular class of cases in all cities, towns and villages, and I invite the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) to seriously consider whether he is properly acting as Minister of Justice in this matter in assisting the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals or the railway corporations in frustrating legislation of this kind. Some remedy is required. It does not do to have the people of the small municipalities, the cities, towns or villages of this country obliged to go and make a special application in regard to each particular crossing to the Railway Commission. These cases are all alike. I point out again to the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals that the Bill which I introduced last year has been altered in two important particulars. Objection was taken to the Bill which I introduced last year because the Bill covered the incorporated limits of cities, towns and villages instead of being limited to thickly peopled parts. I have limited the Bill now before the House. Last year the Bill was objected to because I limited the protection required to watchmen, it being held that gates might be a better protection than watchmen. I have conceded that point. I have complied with two out of the three objections raised. Then there arises what I might call a constitutional question as to whether the people are to have their rights on the highways declared by parliament, by people who are entrusted with that question, or whether such legislation is to be delegated to a Board of Railway Commissioners who are not elected by the people and who are not responsible except to the government who appoint them. Under these circumstances I think the hon. Minister of Justice might suggest some way in which that could be accomplished if he thinks it can be accomplished in any better way than under this amendment. If he thinks it fair that there should be protection afforded to these people does he think it is fair that in respect to every little crossing in every little town coming within the certain limited class that I have described, you should have to make a special application to this Railway Commission and be subjected there to what?-to what counsel for the railway companies suggested, an order being made that this House would never make and which it could hardly constitutionally make that the municipalities should pay part of the expense.

178S
Railways incorporated and built under the law indicating to everybody that they are properly protected in some way where they cross the highway at rail level in thickly peopled portions of cities, towns and villages, and the Railway Commission not elected by the people, having no general power to amend the law would be practically changing the law by saying that as parliament does not deal with that question, as parliament does not insist that this matter must be carried out, we do not suppose that parliament is unanimous in the opinion that the people have the rights that are contended for and we will say, seeing that parliament votes down a Bill of that kind, that they have as much right to pay part of the expense as the railway has. As the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is in the House and knowing that he cannot always be here in the evenings- I am not finding fault with him because he cannot always be here in the evenings-I would like to ask him if he does not think some remedy for the existing condition of things should be carried through by this parliament.


Rt.   H@: Ail 1 have to say to my hon. friend is that rightly or wrongly this matter has been referred to the Railway Committee and the Railway Committee has passed upon it. I may say that the invariable rule of the House is to adopt the report of its committees, unless there are strong reasons shown to the contrary.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is not that limited to private Bills ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I see no reason why the same rule should not apply to public Bills. If a Bill is of such a character that the House thinks it advisable or proper that it should be referred to a committee of the House and the committee reports upon it, it would be expected that it would adopt the report of such committee. I cannot see any reason why there should be a difference in this respect between a public Bill and a private Bill. Whether it be a private Bill or a public bill, the moment the House has thought proper to refer it to a committee, the rule has been that the House should abide by the decision of the committee. It is not binding upon us; we can do the reverse, but it is a safe rule.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What about the merits of this Bill?


Wilfrid Laurier: The merits of the Bill were dealt with by the committee to which it was referred.


John Graham Haggart: It is about six o'clock and as this is almost the last order of a private nature that is on the paper, and as wo could hardly conclude the discussion on it to-night even if we did come back, I do not see the absolute necessity of calling us to-Mr. LANCASTER.
gether to-night. I suppose the government are not ready with any of their work to go on.


Wilfrid Laurier: Oh, yes, we are always ready. This is a private member's day, and if there is a desire on the opposition side to adjourn I have no objection. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to and progress reported.


William Findlay Maclean: Is the House not going to sit to-night?
Sir WILFRID LaURIER. I understand that is the wish on the opposite side of the House, for a very laudable object, that there should be no sitting of the House, and I therefore move that the House do now adjourn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at six p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 28, 1905.