1905-01-30

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 9) to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1900.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Explain.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: Mr. Speaker, the object of the proposed Bill is to broaden the application of section 112 of the Election Act. That is the section which defines undue influence for the purposes of an election. It applies to acts by way of force, violence, restraint, or threats of the same, for the purpose of intimidating electors or of influencing their votes for any candidate. The proposed amendment goes a little farther than the present section, and provides against the canvassing or soliciting of votes by employers from their own workmen, leaving it open to any employer to canvass the rest of the world if he so chooses, but restricting him in the case of his own workmen. It is general in its application, including all persons who employ labour-mercantile men; professional men, manufacturers or large corporations-all kinds of corporations.


Mr. MACLEAN.: What about the farmer and hired man ?
Mr, GUTHRIE. The farmer and hired man will be included also. I think the general section 112 does not go quite far enough to meet this case. The mere fact that an employer canvasses his men involves some intimidation, if not direct, at all events, indirect.


Mr. BRODER.: Does it include the civil service ?


Hugh Guthrie: I have not made it apply to the civil service, but I fancy it might be made to apply to them, too. Anything in that direction, I think, would improve the condition of affairs which exists to-day. That, in brief, is the object of the proposed Bill.


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



QUESTIONS.


Mr. LAKE asked :: 1.	On what date did Mr. J. B. Shaw first enter the government service in the Customs Department at Regina, and at what salary ?
2.	On what date did he retire from the service, and what salary was he receiving when he did retire ?
3.	During what period in 1904, if any, was he not employed in the service of the government?
4.	On what date did he re-enter the service of the government in the Customs Department at Regina ?
5.	On whose recommendation, did he re-enter the service of the government, and at what salary ?
6.	What position did he occupy during his first period of service, and what position does he occupy since re-entering the service ?
7.	What was the cause of his retirement ?


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1.	Mr. J. B. Shaw entered the Customs service at Regina, April 4, 1903, at a salary of $700 a year.
2.	His resignation from the service was accepted September 30, 1903, at which time he was receiving a salary at the rate of $700 a year.
3.	He was not employed in the customs service from October 1, 1903, until December 1, 1904.
4.	Mr. Shaw re-entered the customs service at Regina December 1, 1904.
5.	The Minister of Customs authorized Mr. Shaw's re-employment in the customs service at a salary of $900 a year.
(>. Mr. Shaw's position during his first period of service and since re-entering the service was that of acting preventive officer of customs, but subject to the performance of such duties as the collector might direct.
7. The officer has not stated any cause to the Customs Department for his.retirement.


RETIREMENT OF P. G. FISHER.
Mr. LAKE asked :: 1.	Is Mr. P. G. Fisher at present employed in the Customs Department at Regina ?
2.	If so, in what capacity, and at what salary?
3.	If Mr. Fisher is not in the employ of the Customs Department, when did he retire ?
4.	What was the cause of his retirement ?
5.	What salary did Mr. Fisher draw for his services for November, 1904.


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs):: 1.	P. G. Fisher is at present employed in the customs service at Regina.
2.	His position is that of an acting landing waiter, but subject to perform such duties as the collector may direct. His salary is $700 a year.
3.	Mr. Fisher has given notice of withdrawal from the service to take effect January 31, 1905.
.JANUARY 30, 1905
4.	His reason for withdrawing from the *customs service appears to be that another *customs officer recently employed at the port receives $900 a year.
5.	Mr. Fisher received for salary from
the Customs Department for November, 1904, $58.18.	'


EMPLOYMENT OF P. M.. BREDT.
Mr. LAKE asked :: 1.	Is Mr. P. M. Bredt at present in the employ of the Dominion government ?
2.	If so, since when, in what capacity, and at what salary ?
3.	On whose recommendation was Mr. Bredt appointed to his present position ?
4.	Was Mr. Bredt in the employ of the Dominion government in 1904 ? If so, during what period or periods, and in what capacity or capacities ?
5.	Did Mr. Bredt retire from the service of the Dominion government in 1904 ? If so, cn what date ?
6.	What was the reason for his retirement ?
7.	On whose recommendation was Mr. Bredt appointed to the position he occupied with the government during 1904, and prior to that year?


Eight Hon.   S@: 1 aud 2. Since December 31, 1904, Mr. Bredt has been employed as colonization agent at $125 per month.
4,	Yes, from January 1 to October 4, 1904. From January 1 to .Tune 1, lie filled the position of local immigration agent at Regina-; from June 1 to October 4, be was colonization agent.
5.	Yes, on October 4, 1904.
3,	0 and 7. He wras employed on recommendations satisfactory to the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Clifford Sifton).


MURRAY HARBOUR BRANCH.
Mr. A. MARTIN asked :: 1.	Has the Murray Harbour branch line of railway in Prince Edward Island been completed ? If so, when ?
2.	If not, what remains to be done, and what is the estimated cost of same, including rolling stock ?
3.	How many of the bridges are wooden, or partly wooden structures ? Are they to be replaced by stone or steel ? If so, when, and what is the estimated cost, ?
4.	How many booking and other stations are now built on this line, and where ? How many more are proposed to be built, and where ?
5.	Is a station to be built at Grand View or Newton Crossing on this, line ? If so, is it to be a booking station ?
6.	Has the delegation from Prince Edward Island waited on.any member or official of the government (luring this session of parliament, asking for this station ? If so, of whom composed ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	The Murray Harbour Branch of the Prince Edward island Railway lias not yet been completed.
2.	The work remaining to be done is as follows, viz :
Hillsboro' Bridge.
Rip-rapping, completion of approaches, riprapping piers, erecting and placing in position five fixed spans and one swing span, building rest piers, tracklaying and flooring of whole structure.
On the line.
Three iron bridges to be erected to replace temporary wooden trestles, station and terminal facilities to be completed, water tanks to be erected, rolling stock to be provided.
The estimated cost to complete above mentioned works is $501,253.93.
3.	There are three temporary wooden bridges which will be replaced by Iron or steel, probably during the current year, and the estimated cost is about $8,000.
4.	There are two booking stations built,
one each at Hazel Brook and Vernon River, and two under construction, viz.:	Melville
and Wood Island.
Two way stations are built, one at Albion and one at Lake. Verde. Four shelters are built, viz.: Southport, Bun bury, Mount Herbert and Hermitage, and one under construction at Hopefield.
Three booking stations are proposed to be . built, one each at Uig, Murray River and Murray Harbour.
One way station is proposed to be built at Fodla.
Two shelters are proposed to be built, one at Surrey and the other at Bell River.
5.	The question as to building stations at Grand View and at Newton Crossing is under consideration.
6.	Messrs. A. B. Warburton and L. E. Prowse of Prince Edward Island interviewed the Minister of Railways and Canals recently on the subject of stations on this line.



SHERBROOKE ARMOURIES.

Mr. WORTHINGTON asked :: Is the government aware that the four different branches of the military service which exist in Sherbrooke have for some time past had no suitable premises for the retention of arms and accoutrements ?


Eight Hon.   S@: Quarters have been provided for all the branches of the militia service referred to.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAY BRANCH.

Mr. A. MARTIN asked :: 1.	Has the survey of the proposed railway line In the province of Prince Edward Island between Stanley Bridge, New London, and the main line of the Prince Edward Island Railway been completed ? If not, what are the reasons for the delay ?
2.	Was there more than one route surveyed, and what were the terminal points of each ?

m
3.	Are tenders for construetion to be called for, and when ?
4.	When was the survey begun ?
5.	What is the length of the line, and the estimated cost of construction ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Yes, the survey has been completed.
2.	Two routes were surveyed. One via Clifton and one further east, with terminus at Emerald Junction and Stanley Bridge.
3.	No decision can be reached until the engineer's report is received.
4.	August, 1904.
5.	This information cannot be given sit the present time because the engineer, who made the surveys, has since been seriously ill, and he has not completed the plans, nor made his reports.



ADVANCES BY ORDER IN COUNCIL.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. AMES-by Mr. Perley-asked:
What is the total amount of the advances that have been made by the Governor in Council to date under the authority of Act 3, Edward VII., chapter 36, section 1 ?
Hon. RAYMOND PREEONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: 



CENTRAL TRAINING CAMPS.

Mr. WHITE asked :: Has the government selected a site for the central military training camp ? If so, where will it be located ?


Eight Hon.   S@: No, the matter has not been finally determined.



AGRICULTURAL MEETINGS.

Mr. WORTHINGTON asked :: 1.	Is it the intention of the government,
through the Department of Agriculture, to hold in co-operation with the farmers' clubs of the province of Quebec a number of agricultural meetings ?	,
2.	For what purpose will these meetings be held ?
3.	In what counties in the Eastern Totvnships will these meetings be held, and in connection with what agricultural societies or farmers' clubs ?
4.	Is it the intention of the Department of Agriculture to hold one of these meetings in the county' of Sherbrooke ? If not, why not ?
5.	Is it the intention of the Department of Agriculture to hold in addition to these regular annual meetings a series of large conventions? In what county in the Eastern Townships wilf this convention be held ?


Hou. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) :: 1.	Yes. In co-operation with various agricultural organizations.
2.	The purpose of these meetings is to give instructions by experts regarding the breeding and arrangement of live stock and poultry, the cultivation of the soil, the care of milk, selection of seeds, management of orchards, &c.
3.	The meetings will be held In the Eastern Townships, as follows :
One meeting in Huntingdon county, inconnection with the Agricultural Society of ' A ' Division.
Two meetings in Chateauguay county, one French, in connection with the Farmers' Club at Ste. Martine, and one in English at Ormstown.
One meeting in Brome county, in connection with the Farmers' Club at Sutton.

Two meetings in Shefford county, one French, in connection with the Farmers' Club at Roxton Falls, and one English, in connection with the Farmers' Club at Waterloo.	.
One meeting in Missisquoi, in connection with the District of Bedford Dairymen's Association.
Two meetings in Stanstead county, one English, in connection with the Agricultural Society of that county, and one French in connection with the Farmers' Club at Coati-eook.
Two meetings in Wolfe county, one English, in connection with the club at Bishop's Crossing, and one in French, in connection with the Farmers' Club at Weedon.
Two meetings in Compton county, one French, in connection with the Club at La Patrie, and one English, in connection with the Farmers' Club at Bury.
Two meetings in Drummond county, one French, in connection with the club at St. Germain de Grantham, and one English, in connection with the Farmers' Club at Ul-verton.
One English meeting in Richmond county, in connection with the Farmers' Club at Danville.
Two meetings in Inverness county, one English, in connection with the Farmers' Ciub at Inverness, and one French, in connection with the Farmers' Club at Plessis-ville.
One meeting in Beauce county, in connection with the Farmers' Club at St. Francois.
One meeting in Arthabaska county, in connection with the Farmers' Club at Victoria ville.
The agricultural societies in each county are also lending their co-operation.
1. The above programme was prepared by the officers of my department, and when submitted to me it met with my approval, and I considered it the best that could be made under the circumstances.
5. Yes. The convention for the Eastern Townships will be held in Missisquoi county, at Cowansville, in connection with Hie District of Bedford Dairy Association.



THE SALMON FISHERIES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA.

[Stage Direction]
, Mr. SPROULE asked :
1.	Have any representations been made io the government', or any member thereof, asking for the suspension of salmon canning operations
in British Columbia during the years 1906 and 190S ?
2.	From whom do these representations come ?
3.	Is there any truth in the statement published in the newspapers that United States canners located on Puget Sound have instigated this movement ?
4.	Have any protests been received by the government against the closing down of the salmon canning industry during the years named ? If so, from whom ?
5. What' action does the government intend to take upon this matter ?
Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine aud Fisheries) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Fraser River Canners' Association, Honourable E.' G. Prior, Victoria, and the bank managers and principal business men of Vancouver.
3.	No. The Fraser river canners, alarmed at the rapid decrease in the catch of Sockeye salmon during the last four years- 962,652 cases in 1901,, 293,477 in 1902, 204,809 in 1903 and 72,G8S in 1904-stated in petitions to the government that the industry will be ruined unless the suspension referred to is carried out immediately. To secure concerted action with the United States canners on Puget Sound, a conference of Puget Sound and Fraser river canners was held at Seattle on December 21st, 1904, and a second conference on the 29tli of that month, whicli resulted in memorials being forwarded urging immediate action by Canada, conditional on similar action by the state of Washington.
4.	Yes ; from the Victoria Board of Trade, New Westminster Board of Trade, British Columbia Fishermen's Union, City Council of New Westminster, J. H. Todd & Sons, Victoria ; Henry Doyle, Vancouver, and Richard Hall, M.P.P., delegated to Ottawa for such purpose.
5.	No decision has yet been reached.



THE ATLANTIC FISHERIES.

Mr. GANONG asked :: '
1.	Has the report of the committee appointed to investigate the Atlantic fisheries been received ?
2.	If so, when was it received ?
3.	Has the committee finished their work ? * If not, when will they resume the investigation ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by above..
3.	The investigations on the ground have been finished.



VICTORIA, B.C.-COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS.

Mr. SPROULE asked :: 1.	What was the date of the demise of A. R. Milne, C.M.G., collector of customs at the port of Victoria, B.'C.?
2.	Has the position of collector of customs at Victoria, rendered vacant by the death of Mr. Milne, been filled ?
3.	If not, what is the reason of the delay in making the appointment ?
4.	Who has been acting collector of customs at the port' of Victoria since Mr. Milne's death?
5.	Have any representations been made by public bodies in favour of the filling of the vacancy ?
6.	If so, on whose behalf were these representations made ?
*


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: Mr. Milne, the late collector, died on January 17, 1904. Mr. John C. Newbury, who was chief clerk under Mr. Milne, has been acting as collector since Mr. Milne's death. The question of appointing him permanently to the position is now before Council.



OTTAWA DRILL HALL.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES asked :: 1.	Is the government aware that the accommodation in the present Ottawa drill hall is regarded as totally inadequate for the purposes of the'Ottawa brigade ?
2.	Does the government know that by reason of this lack of accommodation the sergeant's mess of the 43rd regiment has for some time been compelled to occupy quarters in another portion of the city ?
3.	Is the government aware that one or both of the present members for Ottawa, Messrs. Belcourt and Stewart, gave assurances during the last Dominion election campaign that a new drill hall would he erected in Ottawa in the near future if the, Liberal government was sustained on the 3rd of November ?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to give effect to the pre-election promises of Messrs. Belcourt and Stewart by placing a sum of money in the supplementary estimates for the next fiscal year, with a view to the erection of a new drill hall in Ottawa ?


Hou. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) :: 1.	While the accommodation in the present Ottawa drill hall is not all that could be desired, it compares favourably with that of *other cities in the Dominion.
2.	Yes ; and the government pays for the accommodation of the sergeants' mess of the 43rd regiment.
3.	No.
'	4. The question of increased accommodation is under consideration.



LINDSAY DRILL HALL.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES asked :: Is it the intention of the government to erect a new drill hall in Lindsay for the use of the militia of the riding of Victoria and Hali-burton ?


Eight Hon.   S@: The matter is under consideration.



REPORTS PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Partial Report of the Auditor General.- Rt. Hou. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Mr. FOSTER.: Is that the remaining half ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, there is more to come. '
Report of the Department of Justice respecting Penitentiaries-Hon. Chas. Fitzpatrick.


Mr. SPROULE.: 



LABOUR UNION LABELS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. RALPH SMITH (Nanaimo) moved that the House go into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to provide for the registration of labour union labels, and to provide pecuniary penalties for the unlawful use of such labels when so registered.
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee.
Mr. RALPH SMITH.: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it will be necessary for me to occupy tlie time of the House for many minutes on this question, as the principle of this resolution has been before the House of Commons since 1897. Every session since that time, a Bill embodying this principle has been introduced, and in 1898, and again in 1900, the Bill was passed through the House ; but on each occasion it was rejected by the Senate. The people who consider that they have a grievance in connection with the desire to register union labels have made up their minds, since the House of Commons agrees to the principle of this Bill, and since the principle itself is so reasonable and fair, to press for this legislation as long as it is necessary to do so." In my opinion, the majority in the Senate at the present time will be quite prepared to confirm any legislation along these lines if the House of Commons passes it. The object of this legislation is very simple and plain : it is to provide for the registration of union labels. Now, union labels are more extensively used in Canada at the present time than the members of this House are perhaps aware. I have a list of manufacturing interests in Canada which are operating, and have operated for some time, under union labels, and I think it is necessary that these names should be placed on record, in view of the fact that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the chief opponent of this measure, has fought it from the very beginning. In my opinion, they have very much misunderstood the object and operation of the Bill. I do not know that it is necessary for me to read all of these names. There are nearly 100 manufacturers in Canada, from Vancouver to Quebec, who are working harmoniously with the trades unions and using the union labels.
Maddocks & Company, 246 Spadina Ave., Toronto.
John Moses, 354 Spadina Ave., Toronto.
J. D. Hamilton, Stratford.
G. F. Kimberley, St. Catharines.
Havana Cigar Company, Toronto.
C. Blankstein, Berlin.
Weis Brothers, St. Catharines.
Timmons & Mcllwain, St. Catharines.
James Crawford, St. Thomas.
Kressler & Kraen, Berlin (heartily in ascord)
Guelph Cigar Company, Guelph.
John McHugh, St. Catharines.
Cuban Cigar Company, Galt.
William Atkins, London.


William H.: Skelly, Galt.
M. K. Halloran, Brantford.
Begg Brothers, St. Catharines.
B. J. Winter, Brantford.


Charles P.: Tansey, St. Catharines (would he Beneficial to all).
B.	Willberg & Company, New Westminster, B.C.
Geo. Levett, Stratford.
Inland Cigar Manufacturing Company of BritIsh Columbia, Kamloops, B.C.
Cuban Cigar Company, Toronto.
John Knowlton, 150 King Street East, Toronto Kurtz &.Company, Vancouver, B.C.
Tuckett & Company, Hamilton.
Spilling Brothers, Toronto.
Stratford Clothing Company.
John Watt & Son, Hamilton.
A. E. Buscombe, Hamilton.
J. Wr. Flemming, Galt.
McKinnon & Company, Galt.
J. G. Thomson, Hamilton.
G. L. Mullens, Hamilton.
C.	R. Davison, Hamilton.
McPherson & Drope, Hamilton.
The ' Times Hamilton.
James Ennis & Company, Hamilton.


John J.: Burns, Hamilton.
Duncan & Company, Hamilton.
J. P. Macleod, Hamilton.
Hamilton Printing Company, Hamilton.
The ' Expositor,' Brantford.
John Watt & Son, Hamilton.
Petition from Vancouver, B. C., merchant tailors, seven merchants.
' Herald ' Printing Company, Hamilton.


James A.: Cox, printer, Hamilton.
McRae & McDonald, tailors, Vancouver, B.C. Adam Cook & Company, printers, Hamilton. Petition from tailors, Toronto, six sign.
W. & D. Dineen, hatters, Toronto.
* Pioneer ' Publishing Company, Phoenix, B.C The ' Evening Sun,' Columbia, B.C.
Grand Forks ' News-Gazette,' Grand Forks, B.C.
T. Lewis & Company, Montreal (cigars).
A. LaRue, Montreal (cigars).
Martin Brothers, Montreal (cigars).
J. A. Allard, Sherbrooke, Que. (cigars).
Empey & Company, Brockville (cigars).
The Happy Four Cigar Company, Montreal. Unique Cigar Company, Montreal.
Hart & Morris Cigar Company, Montreal.
Robt. Raw & Company, Hamilton.
L. V. Hodd, Montreal (cigars).
E. N. Cuson & Company, Montreal (cigars). Pelletier & Company, Montreal (cigars). Girardin & Company, Montreal (cigars).
L. Z. Boudreau, printers, Montreal.
A. P. Pigeon, printers, Montreal.
List of 318 firms using shoe labels. Co-operative Broom Company, Berlin, Ont. Jones Brothers, Woodstock (cigars).
This list comprises some 90 firms doing business in Canada who have been working harmoniously with the trades unions, and all that they ask is that these labels should be registered. If a manufacturing firm agrees to work with a union the placing of the union label on its goods is an indication that the union is perfectly satisfied with the conditions under which the men work. Bui should there be a manufacturer across the street, who is a competitor and not prepared to work in harmony with the union, there is still nothing to prevent him fraudulently using the union label on his goods and the union has no remedy. The object of my resolution is to enable any trades union to apply, in the name of some of its officials to the Department of Agriculture and have any particular design adopted by it registered in the names of its officials. I have in my possession some letters from manufacturers with regard to this matter.


Mr. HAGGART.: Cannot any person have a label registered at present ?


Ralph Smith: I am not aware that he cau. As a matter of fact the unions did try to get amendments to the Trades and Marks Act for the purpose of accomplishing this, but the Senate threw out the Bill as they did not consider it wise to interfere with tile Act.
'Mr. CLARE.. What difference between this Bill and the one that went through this House.


Ralph Smith: The Bill I propose to introduce is not an amendment to the Trades and Marks Act, hut a separate and distinct Bill providing for the registration of labels.


Mr. CLARE.: Was the Bill before the House last year V


Ralph Smith: This is an exact copy of it.


George Adam Clare: Was it thrown out by the Senate ?


Ralph Smith: It only passed its first reading in this House and was laid over with a large number of Bills for the purpose of shortening the session.


George Adam Clare: But did you not say it was thrown out by the Senate ?


Ralph Smith: Not the Bill of
last year, but a Bill introduced in 1901, providing for an amendment to the Trades and Marks with the same object.


Gilbert White Ganong: Does the hon. gentleman say that you cannot now register a label under the present law ?


Ralph Smith: I understand it is not possible to register a Trades Union mark at present. The late Mr. Bertram, who was formerly member for Toronto Centre, and a very large manufacturer, introduced a Bill to the same effect in 1898 and had it passed through this House. I would ask permission to read a short extract from what lie then said :
Instead of raising objections to a union workman using a label or mark, I think it should be encouraged, for the simple reason that the fact of the goods they manufacture bearing such a label or mark is an incentive to them to produce a higher and better class of goods : otherwise the label would be of no value to them. I am satisfied that the evils resulting from this practice as indicated by the speeches of some


Ralph Smith: We are heartily in sympathy with your movement.-The Stratford Clothing Company, Limited.
We have no doubt that the passing of an Act would have a good effect on every one concerned. -Spilling Brothers, Toronto.
We are heartily in accord and hope your efforts will be successful.-Inland Cigar Manufacturing Company, of Kamloops, B.C.
We are favourable to the use of the union label, because it represents a better class of work produced under fairer conditions of labour-The Times Printing Company, Hamilton, Ont.	.
I thoroughly approve of the Bill now before the Dominion parliament authorizing the registration of union labels by the organizations concerned.-The Expositor, Brantford, Ont.
I have a large number of letters from these manufacturing interests that are working with the unions in the application of the union label, agreeing that some provision should be made for the registration of the label.
In asking for this legislation, we are not asking for anything new. Only after very serious consideration would I bring before this House any proposition for which no precedent could be given. This legislation was passed in England twelve years ago. In that country, the unions connected with any manufacturing interest can create a design, have it registered as a trades union label under the Copyright Act. And I have here a list of the states of the neighbouring union in which this principle of the union label is established by law, and in that list are the names of no less than thirty-one states. The Bill I propose to introduce is. an exact copy of the law that lias passed these state legislatures and lias been in operation for years. These facts, I think, should be a sufficient guarantee to members of this House, that there is nothing in this legislation that would prejudice the rights or interest of the public.
As I say, the chief opposition to the registration of the union label in the past has emanated from the Canadian Manufac-ers' Association. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association make no discrimination in their opposition to this class of legislation. With them it is not a question of whether the principle of a measure is or is not important; but, as can he seen by their weekly journal, they oppose every kind of legislation that lias for its object tlie bringing about of better conditions for tlie industrial classes.
An bon. MEMBER. Gammon.


Ralph Smith: That is the fact, whatever the bon. gentleman may say. And to prove that it is a fact, I may remind the House that tlie Canadian Manufacturers' Association have legislative committees which visit all the legislatures of the Dominion, including this parliament. And, lust year, when a Bill was proposed in the 1 legislature of the province of Quebec em-

bodying the principle that bus been established in the law of England for ten or fifteen years, the well-known principle of compensation for workmen, the committee of the association appeared and bitterly opposed that Bill and secured its defeat. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association want high protection for the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and absolute free trade for everybody else. I quite understand that It may have been necessary and wise on tLeir part to oppose certain extreme legislation; but they do not discriminate; they oppose whether the legisation is reasonable or not.
Now, before I take my seat, I wish to refer to two or three objections that have' been brought forward by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association to this measure. The first is that it would be injurious to the manufacturers of this country. Well, for my part, I do not wish to do anything to injure our manufacturers; I will not be the promoter of any legislation or of any principle that will injure the manufacturing interests of this country. But I am sure the manufacturers have not given the consideration to this matter that it deserves or they would not view it as they do. Under the' legislation I propose, the label cannot be used without the consent of the manufacturer himself. The Bill is entirely permissive. For instance, if the Cigar Makers Union create a design and have it registered under the law, and they come to the manufacturer, the owner of the industry in which they work, and say : We are perfectly content with the conditions under which we work, and, if you like you can place this label upon your product-if the manufacturer declines, that is an end of the matter; the label cannot be used at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But would not the legislation be a means to enable them to boycott the manufacturer ?


Ralph Smith: I was just coming to that, for this also is one of the extraordinary arguments put forward by the Manufacturers' Association. Unions using the label under this proposed law could not carry on a boycott against any manufactur ing interest any more than they can to-day. If a manufacturer to-day refuses to work with the union, there is an opportunity to boycott him. But it is not done. This Bill provides no machinery that will give the unions a better opportunity to boycott a manufacturer than exists to-day. It is necessary for the members of this House to have the Bill in their hands before they can discuss the subject fully; but I am convinced that when lion, members have an opportunity to read the Bill, they will agree that the Manufacturers' Association, who are fighting this principle so strongly, have an erroneous conception of the legislation proposed. I move the adoption of the resolution.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can a factory use that union label without being compelled to have nothing but the union labour in its employ?


Ralph Smith: There is nothing in the Bill to compel a factory to employ nothing but union labour. In fact, the union label could be operated without a union at all. If the workmen in a certain factory agree that the conditions under which they work are good, and unite for the purpose of having a registered label, that is all that would be necessary.	.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would this apply to the Government Printing Bureau 1


Ralph Smith: I do not know what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) is driving at.	_


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I asked what I regard as a perfectly fair question. Just as we wished to know whether the Railway Act would apply to the Intercolonial Railway, so we wish to know -whether this Bill will apply to the Government Printing Bureau.


Ralph Smith: I did not catch the hon. gentleman's question. There is nothing in the Bill to make it specifically applicable to government work. But there is no objection to that, and I would be glad to see that provision inserted, so far as I am concerned.


John Graham Haggart: Perhaps it is because I have not paid particular attention to this matter, but from the hon. gentleman's statement, I do not clearly understand the position. I do not understand why any corporation have not * right to register a trade mark or a design, and why they have not a right to enter into any arrangement they choose to make with parties who are manufacturing any article, as to whether they shall use the design. I do not think there is anything in the law at present that prevents that. I think that the Registration, or Design Act is broad enough to allow it. But if the object which the hon. gentleman has in his mind is to allow other than corporations, men who are not responsible parties, to register a design, in order that he may receive a benefit from it without being liable in any way to penalties to other parties-if that is the object, it would be objectionable. But if the object of the hon. gentleman in introducing the resolution is merely to give to a corporate body the right to register a design and to enter into arrangements with a manufacturer to use that design if he likes, there cannot be any possible objection to it.


Ralph Smith: But the application covers every organized body. The hon. gentleman must remember that the majority of trades unions in this country are not incorporated. The application of this label 1 will be allowed to all these bodies.

2 SO


William Findlay Maclean: Would the hon. gentleman say whether similar legislation has been introduced in any other country ?


Ralph Smith: Yes, legislation ot this kind was ])assed iwelve years ago in England, under the Copyright Act, covering every union incorporated or otherwise. The same provision is also made in an Act of the Congress of the United States.


Rt.   H@: As I understand, the chief object of this legislation is to provide penalties against the unlawful use of this label. I would be disposed to agree with the bon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart); I do not see any necessity for it. But as I understand the principal object of the Bill is to provide penalties against the unlawful use of such a label. We are at the present moment committing ourselves to nothing in passing this resolution, and until we have the Bill before us founded upon this resolution, it is not possible to discuss the matter intelligently.


Mr. A. B. INGRAM.: This Bill has been before this House on a good many occasions. It has passed this House on two or three different occasions, and was sent to the Senate, where it was thrown out, both when the Conservative party were in power and since the Liberal party have been in power. It seems to me a useless waste of time to introduce legislation of this kind from year to year as long as the government look upon it so unfavourably as they have done in the past. So far as the Bill itself is concerned. I do not wish to discuss It at this moment, but it strikes me that the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith) will make very little headway with his Bill, judging from the tone of the House at the present moment. I think the government ought to give an expression of opinion as to whether they are favourably disposed towards the passing of this legislation.
Sir WILFRID LAURIEIt. We must see the Bill first.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is the same old Bill.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time and agreed to.
Mr. RALPH SMITH moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 10) respecting Labour Union Labels.


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

[Stage Direction]
. Por a return showing the value of vegetables imported from the United States, and entered at the ports of Montreal and Toronto, during the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1904 ; giving separately the values for the first and last six months of said year. Also a statement showing the value of canned, preserved or dried Mr. RALPH SMITH.
vegetables entered at said ports for the fiscal year ; and the amounts of duties collected at both ports in the above eases.-Mr. Monk-by Mr. Bergeron.
For copies of all circulars or advices issued by the Intercolonial Railway governing the transport of hay, under the free transport Order in Council of 1904, and of all certificates signed by .municipalities or individuals to whom hay was delivered thereunder.-Mr. Foster.


Mr. A. MARTIN.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to draw the attention of the government to the delay which occurs in the transmission of the mails from Prince Edward Island to the mainland. We find only to-day on the files in the reading room the newspapers published iu the island a week ago, which means that for nearly a week the people of the province are without mail communication with the mainland. This I know is an old complaint, we have suffered from it for years. It seems to me that it was the duty of the government, seeing that the winter boats were unable to effect a crossing to have the route at the Capes in readiness. There appears to be the same unreadiness every year, to the great loss of the people of the province.
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIEIt (Prime Minister). Will my hon. friend pardon me? If he lias any lengthy' remarks to make, I would suggest to him that it would be more in order if lie were to reserve them until tile House is moved into committee. Of course, if lie only' wishes to put a question, there can he no objection to it.


Alexander Martin: The question is whether the government are going to make further provision for improving the unsatisfactory' communication between the province and the mainland ? We have two boats, the ' Stanley ' and the 'Minto.' The ' Stanley ' is now getting very' old. Every one knows that the 'Stanley' is not able to perform the work. I would like to know if the government intend to proceed with the construction of a new boat and if those yearly' troubles are to be remedied.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry tc hear that the service is not satisfactory.
I was led to believe that is was more satisfactory than ever before, but if it has become unsatisfactory by reason of the fact of one of tlie boats getting old the matter will have to receive some consideration. Perhaps latter on I will give some answer to my' bon. friend on this matter.



IGE JAM IN THE ST. LAWRENCE.

Andrew Broder: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to refer to a matter that I think should have the attention of the gov-

eminent. In the St. Lawrence river, below the village of Morrisburg, where I live, there is a very serious blockade of ice about seven miles long, the water has risen some six feet and unless something is done to avert it, serious damage will be occasioned to a great deal of property belonging to people who live adjacent to the river. In 18 years, I think, this is the fourth serious ice jam they have had in that vicinity, and once or twice considerable damage has been done. The dangerous feature of the present blockade is that it has occurred so early in the winter that if the cold weather continues and a heavy fall of snow comes it is difficult to tell what may happen. Previous to this the ice jams have occurred later in the winter and the spring coming soon after the commencement of the block the ice rotted and broke away. But, this ice jam commenced to form on the 9th of the month and now it extends from Woodlands to west of Aultsville, the channel being closed for a distance of seven miles. The snow comes down and forms what is called anchor ice and this blocks the river. The water is rising and endangering property along the banks of the river. It seems that the ice forms in the bays, and when it breaks it floats across the river, catches on the opposite point and then the formation of a bridge takes place. I was told by an individual who seems to have the facts in his possession that the ice has been cut on the American side in the bay and allowed to swing round. I do not know as to the truth of this statement, but this gentlemen told me that a day or two ago, and if it is so there ought to be some understanding between the 'Canadian government and the American government that this thing should not be allowed to reoccur. Those who understand the remedy say that if piers were built in the bay on the American side, the ice would not float out and this danger would be averted.
I take this opportunity of bringing this matter to the attention of the government. They ought to have an individual visit the place and see what the conditions are anyway.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.

Mr.  E. A.@: LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara) moved tlie second reading of Bill (No. 2) to Amend the Railway Act, 1903.


Mr. A. LAVERGNE.: (Translation.) I notice by the Orders of the Day that this Bill is not yet printed in the French language. In this case, I would advise the promoter of the Bill not to move the second reading until we have the French copy before us. It is desirable that we should have this Bill in French so that we may know its purport before discussing it.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I may say in regard ! to that matter that I was informed by the translator to-day, who came to me for the I
purpose of telling me, that although the Orders of the Day showed that the Bill was not printed in French it was actually printed in both languages, and he wanted me to know it, so that I would not hesitate to go on with it this afternoon. The French translator said that although the Orders of the Day did not show it to have been printed in French it was as a matter of fact printed and distributed in both languages and he thought it was right I should know it.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I can only accept the paper as I find it in my hands.


John Graham Haggart: Several times Bills when printed in French and distributed, although not shown on the order paper, have been proceeded with.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The French translator came to me in the library where I was looking up some books and said to me:	'Are
you in charge of that Bill 1 ' And when I told him that I was, he told me he thought it was right that I should know that the Bill had been printed in French and distributed several days ago, although the Orders of the Day did not show it.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is no object in delaying this Bill whatever. If the Bill is printed in French I do not see why the matter should not be proceeded with, but, of course, Mr. Speaker, may only have the official paper before him and it may not show that the Bill has been printed in French. Can we not take up the next item and in the meantime ascertain whether the Bill is printed in French ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have been asked to allow the next Bill, to amend the Act respecting the Certificates to Masters and Mates of Ships, to stand.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It nppars from a copy produced that the Bill is printed in French. The hon. gentleman may proceed. '


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is to remedy a state of affairs, which, I think, every hon. gentleman in this House will agree must be remedied in some way. The Bill is aimed at protecting the lives of and preventing injuries to people upon highway crossings where railways cross upon the level of the highway. The law was laid down decisively a year ago last autumn by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of McKay vs. the Grand Trunk Railway, which practically renders the section which I am seeking to amend by this Bill nugatory and of no effect at all. The section which I am dealing with is a section which has always provided for protection of some kind to people upon the highway on the rail level in tbjckly populated portions of cities, towns and villages and that legislation has existed since 1857. The first enactment was in 20 Vic., chap. 12, sec. 11 :

*

and that no locomotive or railway engine
shall pass in or through any thickly peopled portion of any city, town or village at a speed greater than six miles per hour, unless the track is properly fenced.
That enactment was continued year after year in every consolidation of the railway law until 1892, when it was changed by substituting for the words ' unless the track is properly fenced ' the words * unless the track is fenced in the manner prescribed by this Act.' Hon. gentlemen will see that there was no practical change although there was a verbal change.


John Graham Haggart: Is that the law now?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Practically. The iSupreme Court decided in the case of McKay vs. the Grand Trunk that it meant, that if they fenced the track against the adjoining owners of land and did not provide any protection upon the highway at all, they could still run as fast as they liked unless an order was obtained from the Railway Committee of the Privj* Council, whose place is now taken by the Board of Railway Commissioners. The law was changed verbally, but not in effect in 1903, in consolidating the Railway Act so as to read :
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,-
You will observe that they were permitted to run at the rate of ten miles an hour instead of six.

unless the track is fenced or properly protected in the manner prescribed by this Act, or unless permission is given by some regulation or order of the board. The board may limit such speed in any case to any rate whijh it deems expedient.


John Graham Haggart: What clause is that ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Clause 227 of the Consolidated Railway Act, 1903, chap. 58. It is quite obvious that the decision of the Supreme Court still applies, the only difference as you will see being in the wording of the Act. They are not permitted to run at a greater speed than ten miles an hour unless the track is fenced as required by the Act, or as it now reads ' unless the track is fenced or properly protected in the manner prescribed in this Act.' This matter was discussed at great length last session when this Bill was sent to the Railway Committee and back again to the House, but nothing was done to remedy the evil. It is a very serious evil and the number of lives that are being lost and the number of people who are being injured in cities, towns and villages, by railways at unprotected railway crossings is very great. Although this Bill did go to the Railway Committee and although it was discussed in the House last session, I am afraid I shall be compelled in the discharge of my duty here to go into this matter a little more fully than I Mr. LANCASTER.
otherwise would, owing to the fact that this is a new parliament and that many of the gentlemen who are here were not here last session and would perhaps desire to hear this discussed at greater length than would be necessary if I were speaking only to those who were here last session. The decision of the Supreme Court is that all the protection we can get under this section is a special protection which the Railway Committee might order. It is true that in the case decided, the Supreme Court refer to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, because at that time the Railway Commission was not in existence, and the Railway Committee of the Privy Council had the same jurisdiction as is now possessed by the Railway Commission. The Railway Commission is bound by exactly the same rules as those laid down by the Supreme Court, that is that they can give any protection they like at any place or any kind of crossing, blit according to the decision in this case unless you get a special order for special protection at every crossing we are entitled to no protection whatever, at that place of intersection where the danger exists and where people are being injured or killed. This is the way the section has been construed by the Supreme Court as will be seen in Volume 34 of Supreme Court Reports, in the judgment of Mr. Justice Davies wlio gives bis decision at page 94. I shall read one or two extracts from that decision in order to show that I am not taking a wrong view of that decision. I shall, however, preface this by saying that the effect of the decision is, that unless the track is fenced as against adjoining owners the company is liable, but if it is fenced as against adjoining orders, then there is no liability for an accident at a crossing no matter how fast the tiain may run unless an order has been obtained for special protection at the particular crossing. Mr. Justice Davies said :
The negligence which did cause or lead to the accident was found by the jury to be the speed at which the train was running over the street crossing and the absence at such crossing of a flagman or gates.
The contention of the plaintiff is that the speed at which the train was running was a violation of the statutory provision of the Railway Act because it was of greater speed than six miles an hour through a thickly peopled portion of the town of Forest, the railway track at the crossing of the street not being fenced as he contended in the manner required by the Act. The plaintiff further says that even if the Act has been complied with as regards fencing, the rate of speed in the absence of gates or watchman at the crossing was a matter at common law open to the jury to pass upon, and if they found it, under the circumstances, a dangerous rate and a cause of the accident the defendant company would be liable.
The Court of Appeal reached the conclusion that the proper construction of the statutory provisions with regard to the fencing prescribed

-at the crossings and the rate of speed at which a train could run through a thickly peopled portion of any city, town or village, requires either a fencing across the highway at the crossing, so retaining the travelling public in a place of safety while the train is passing, or the stationing of a watchman or the maintenance of a reasonable fence sufficient for the purpose, or the reduction of the speed of the train to the permitted maximum of six miles an hour. As the company had not adopted any of these precautions which the court decided were obligatory by statute they held it liable under the finding of the jury and dismissed the appeal.
I pause here to remark, Mr. Speaker, that I think nine out of ten lawyers in Ontario at all events understood the law to be as the Court of Appeal pronounced it, that this section was not idle, was not meant to be nonsense, was not placed on the statute-book and reiterated from year to year from 1857 for the mere sake of employing someone to print a few more words; that it was intended to mean something and did mean something, and that it laid down the rule that a train should not exceed six miles an hour unless the track was properly fenced, and that a proper fence would be a fence to protect the people in regard to the subject-matter of the section, which is the protection of life upon the highway, because the section is dealing only with the danger of travelling along a highway where rail-wavs intersect the highway at rail-level. Every one believed that the Court of Appeal of Ontario decided that the section meant this, and as the railway had exceeded six miles an hour and had provided no protection therefore they were liable.
I am here to say that we must be practical in this House, and that our legislation must deal with things as they are. You mav argue that a railway does not want to kill people, but unless you pass a law making a railway liable the railway will not worry much whether it does or does not kill people. There is no sentiment about a railway except the wish to make nli the money they can, and they will run their trains as fast as the public demand in order to make them pay and will not bother about any ones life unless you have a law which will take some money from their pockets, and unless there is imposed on the railways a liability, definite, clear and certain which can be enforced without the necessity of having to go across to England as the parties in the McKay case started to do ; they will not adopt precautions. A person injured or the relatives of a person killed should be able to recover damages as in other cases of negligence when the company does what it ought not to do, and unless you have such a definite and clear responsibility as I have indicated you can get no practical benefit in regard to the regulating of the speed of trains.
Mr. Justice Davies in reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeal goes on to say :
A careful reading and consideration of the whole Railway Act and its general scheme and purpose has lead me to the conclusion that the construction placed upon these sections by the Court of Appeal in this case was not the proper one, and that the sections relied upon by that court in its judgment do not either require or authorize railway companies, without the previous order of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, to fence highways or place gates across them wheTe they are crossed at the level by the railway, or compel them to place flagmen at these crossings to warn the public when trains are crossing.	_
In my judgment parliament has by the 187th section of the Railway Act vested in the Railway Committee of the Privy Council the exclusive power and duty of determining the character and extent of the protection w'hich should be given to the public at places where the railway track crosses a highway at rail-level.
That brings us to the issue which is really the serious thing in this matter. According to that decision-and I am not here to say that it is not the correct construction of'the law and a correct decision, although I have heard it questioned-it is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, and every court in Ontario and every other province is bound by that decision until it is reversed. It can be reversed in two ways, either by the judicial committee of the Privy Council in England or by parliament reversing it as I am indicating in my amendment. The issue is :	Is it intended that
there shall be no more protection in the thickly peopled portion of cities, towns and villages than there is anywhere else 1 That is what that decision amounts to, that is unless you get a special order for a special protection at every street in every part of every city, town and village where life is endangered by the rapid running of trains ; they can run as fast as they like, can exceed the statutory limit which used to be six miles and is now ten miles an hour, can absolutely ignore all rights of the people and yet evade all liability. The section is uug-atory, because it is dealing entirely with the protection of people at crossings where railway trains run through thickly peopled districts.


John Graham Haggart: Is the wording of the section in the present Act, the Act of 1903, similar to that of the Act on which the Supreme Court gave its decision ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The operative part is the same but the statute of 1903 lias some other words added explicitly saying that the board can order any protection they like and regulate the rate of speed. But I point out that the only serious objection made to this section of the Bill in the Railway Committee last year by the representatives of the railway was that that could be accomplished by other sections of the Railway Act. It was pointed out that there is a portion of the Railway Act devoted to the powers of the board and that they have ample power

to order protection without these words. The effect of the legislation is exactly as it was when the Supreme Court decided this case a year ago last December.
The result is that in the laws of this country, as construed by the Supreme Court of Canada, there is no protection to-day for the public in the thickly-peopled portions of cities, towns and villages, unless you get a special order from the Board of Railway Commissioners in each particular case. Now, what does that involve ? In the first place, every 'city, town or village has to make a special application in regard to every crossing-practically to bring a lawsuit against the railway company in regard to every crossing where there is not now protection, and the railway company can oppose the application and fight it out here in the city of Ottawa before the Board of Railway Commissioners ; and then there may be an appeal from that body to the Governor in Council. There must be a separate application in regard to every crossing. We have no law to meet the case unless my amendment, or some amendment like it, is adopted. You have to file plans and bring your witnesses and fight out your application for each particular crossing. That, I repeat, was not the Intention of parliament. In my opinion, the Court of Appeal properly construed the object of parliament in making the law from 1857, when it laid it down that in the thickly-peopled portions of every city, town and village the railways should not exceed a speed of six miles an hour unless they afforded some kind of protection. By this section of the Act parliament intended to deal with that class of case which is so common that it requires a general rule. The thickly-peopled portions of cities, towns and villages require more protection than the open country, where the same obstructions to the view do not exist, and where there are not the noises which prevent approaching trains being heard. I said at the outset, and I repeat it. that there are too many lives being lost and too many people being injured by the railways at these crossings- a great many more than are necessary. This would not be the case if the railways were required to put in some protection. My Bill of last session was sent to the Railway Committee against my desire, but by the decision of the majority of the House ; and what were the objections urged against it there ? There were three objections, two of which, I am glad to say, I have been able to avoid by my present amendment. The first was this. I thought we should define what a thickly-peopled portion of a city, town or village was. that is we should say, within the incorporated limits of every city, town and village. But it was said that there were sections within the corporate limits of every city, town and village which were not so thickly-peopled as to make that necessary- that there were open spaces where cross-


Edward Arthur Lancaster: ings did not require any greater protection than in the country. And so the section, as I propose to amend it, will read :
No trains shall pass in or through any thickly peopled portion of any city, town or village, at a speed greater than ten miles an hour, unless the track is fenced and properly protected in the manner prescribed by this Act.
My amendment is first to strike out the word 'or' and insert the word 'and ' instead. By the decision of the Supreme Court the railway company has only to fence against the adjoining owners ; and unless you get a special order from the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, or from the Board of Railway Commissioners, you are not entitled to any other protection. I contend that unless the word ' or ' is struck out and the word ' and ' is substituted, the railway company is not obliged to provide protection so long as the track is fenced against tlie adjoining owners, though that may have nothing to do with the proper protection of the crossing. I cannot help saying that I think it was unintentional on the part of the Hon. Mr. Blair, who was in charge of the Railway Bill during its passage through this House, that the word ' or ' was used instead of the word ' and ' ; because, according to the decision of the Supreme Court, it does not compel the railway company to afford any protection at the crossing at all. Even if you get an order from the Railway Commission requiring the company to erect gates or put a watchman on, or afford some other kind of protection, and the company does not comply with that order, but only-fences the track against the adjoining owners, it is not liable. Therefore, I propose, by my amendment, that the railway company shall be bound to fence the track against the adjoining owners and shall also be bound to afford protection at the crossings in whatever way the law directs.
The second objection urged against my Bill of last year in the Railway Committee was that it made provision only for a watchman or a flagman, who was, I thought, the best possible kind of protection-not an inanimate gate, but a man who, on the approach of a train, could direct the traveller's attention to it, and say : ' Hold on, the express is coming down in a minute or two.'
That would be the best protection. But it was argued by the usual representatives of the railways in the Railway Committee that it would be a fearful expense to provide these watchmen, that there were cheaper ways of affording protection, such as automatic or other gates. They said my Bill should not pass, because it limited the protection to watchmen. The Minister of Railways raised that objection in this House, and said there were better means of protection than watchmen. True, these gentlemen did not suggest or point out any other remedy. But I recognize the force of the suggestion that the railway companies

should have the right to provide either gates or watchmen, as they see fit.
I have given into them this year, and am only asking that the railway companies should provide either watchmen or gates. Where they put in gates, they need not employ watchmen, but if they do not want to use gates they must employ watchmen. They have to do either the one thing or the other or else keep their speed down to ten miles an hour. If they keep their speed below ten miles an hour then they will not be responsible should they run into anybody, and they need not put up a gate or employ watchmen. The railway companies, however, urged very strongly that they must run at a fast rate of speed, and consequently the minimum rate was raised from six to ten miles an hour. I am willing to take that rate as the minimum, but if they run beyond that rate they must provide some protection. In every case, the accident is due to the fast rate of speed which prevents people from seeing or hearing a train coming in time to avoid it. In the village of Grimsby, two years ago, three young people who were walking home from church at eight o'clock in the evening, shortly before Christmas, were hurled into eternity by a train which was running over fifty miles an hour. The train hands admitted a speed of forty-five miles and we may safely conclude that it must have been at least fifty. These young people were waiting for a freight train to cross, and were struck by another train coming in an opposite direction. There could be no suggestion of suicide, they were all trying to keep out of the way, but could not see or hear the coming train in time to avoid it. Had it been going at the rate of ten miles an hour they would certainly have escaped. In the Mackay case the rate of speed was about twenty miles an hour, which the jury found unreasonable, and if it were not for the construction put upon the law by the Supreme Court, the verdict would have stood. This matter is one of great importance. Hast year my hon. friend the Minister of Justice acknowledged that there was a grievance and that something should be done, but another twelve months have rolled around and nothing has been done, and nothing will be done until you force the railways to furnish adequate protection under severe penalty. We frequently have- the contention raised that all railways should be compelled to get off the level-that they should either go underneath or bridge over the highways. Were I to go that far, I would be told that that would be imposing on the railway companies an enormous expenditure. Mr. Justice Davies, in giving bis decision, acknowledged that in England the law is what we would like to have it here, but he added that as the population there is more dense and the railways longer in existence, greater precautions are required. He went on to say:
No negligence was found or proved with regard to the fencing and if mv construction of the Act is correct there was none, it being admitted that on this construction the fences were all right. That being so the rate of speed at which the train could run across the level highway crossing was a matter solely for the determination of the Railway Committee, as was also the determination of the lciud, character and extent of the protection which either by gates, watchman or otherwise, should be provided for the travelling public.
In England the railways are not allowed to run at all on the level across a public highway. I do not say that we should go that far, although I know that if I did I would be more popular with many newspapers, which take that view. There is another view to be considered, and that is the desirability of having tome clearness and certainty in our legislat on. People should not be compelled to go from court to court and even across to England in order to find out what an Act of parliament really does mean. We want our legislation so drafted that any man of ordinary intelligence can tell without doubt what is the law. But in this Mackay case, what happened? Mr. Justice McMahon, a pre-eminently able judge, decided in favour of the plaintiff, and his decision was upheld by the full Court of Appeals of Ontario, comprising five judges. Mr. Justice Girouard of the Supreme Court took the same view, but the other four judges of that court reversed the decision. It appears now that the Mackay case has been settled. It appears that when the plaintiff undertook to appeal to the Privy Council, the railway company thought it better to settle his claim rather than run the risk of having the decision of the Supreme Court reversed. They knew the case, and they were afraid that the Privy Council would decide that the Court of Appeal in Ontario was right. They did not want the judgment disturbed, and they paid the claim. But the effect of it Is that, even though a person is killed or injured by a train running at more than ten miles an hour through the thickly peopled portion of any city, town or village, his administrators or he cannot recover damages unless a special order was passed for protection of the crossing at which the injury took place.
Suppose that a man is accustomed to drive into this city by Wellington street. And suppose that, on Wellington street, there is a railway crossing which is protected by gate or watchman under order of the Railway Commission. But one morning the man, instead of driving in by Wellington street, drives in by another road where also there is a railway crossing. Is It not reasonable that he should expect the same protection and to be stopped at that crossing by a gate or watchman as in the case of the road to which he is accustomed ? May he not fairly suppose that streets leading into the same city will



KB VISED EDITION

[Stage Direction]
be protected in the same way, and that the lives of passers-by will not be dependent upon their knowledge of the special local conditions ? To whom does the highway belong ? Who has the first right in the highway 1
William Findlay Maclean: The King's subjects.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Certainly, the King's subjects, as my hon. friend says. If you draw an indictment against a person fox-obstructing the highway, you charge him with pi-eventing His Majesty's liege subjects from having free access to and free passage on and along that highway. The whole object of the highway is to benefit the King's subjects. When, to open up the counti-y, we encourage railways to build and allow them to cross highways on the level, we give them license to use the highway-not to control or obstx-uct it. The people passing along the highway have the right to pass there safely. If the railway is given a license to cross, it should be compelled by parliament to make the crossing, as little unsafe as possible. Of coui-se, it cannot be made absolutely safe, but nothing that can be suggested by any person in this House or out of it should be left undone to make the highway safe for the people who have to use it.
The section as it stands means nothing- it has no practical effect. Crossings need not be protected unless there is a special oi-der of the Railway Commission to that effect. And, before such an order can be had, what must be done ? I have here the rules of the Railway Commission, issued recently. They are rules such as those of the High Court of Justice of Ontario. You must practically make out a statement of claim, employing a lawyer to draught it so that it will not be demurrable, but will stand attacks from the keenest railway lawyers; this must be served and filed; they put in their answers; you put in a reply; and a time must be fixed for the hearing, and you must come to Ottawa and press and try the case. I contend that the members of this House ought to be able to pass a section such as the one that I propose that will cover the cases and give effectual protection to the peojxle without all that expense and trouble.


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: The consideration of this section of the Railway Act has claimed a good deal of the time of this House in a former parliament, and certainly consumed a gi'eat deal of the time ot the committee to which the Bill at that time was referred.
I think my hon. friend (Mr. Lancastei-) makes too much of the idea that if one wants the Railway Commissioners to deal with this subject, which is entirely within their jui-is-diction, he would have to come to Ottawa and make a special application in every case. I am surprised he has not referred to Mr. LANCASTER.
the Act which created the Commission. He certainly has not studied its provisions. Parliament, in its wisdom, delegated to the Railway Commission the powers which were formerly exercised by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, among them the power to deal with this subject of crossings. Section 227, which my hon. friend seeks to amend, states in very clear terms :
No train shall pass in or through any thickly peopled portion of any city, town or village, at a speed greater than ten miles an hour, unless the track is fenced or properly protected in the manner prescribed by this Act, or unless permission is given by some regulation or order of the board. The board may limit such speed in . any case to any rate which it deems expedient.
This section recognizes the jurisdiction and the duty of the Commissioners to deal with this point. And, when giving that power to the Commissioners, parliament saw fit to make further provision in connection with the exercise of the powers thus given. Under section 21 of the Railway Act, it is provided :
The board may, of its own motion, or shall, upon the request of the minister, inquire into, hear and determine any matter or thing which, under this Act, it may inquire into, hear and determine, upon application or complaint, and with respect thereto shall have and may exercise the same powers as, upon any application or complaint, are vested in it by this Act.
2. Any power, or authority vested in the board under this Act, though not so expressed in this Act, be exercised from time to time, or at any time, as the occasion may require.
Section 23 of the Act, preceding the section I have just read, says:
The hoard shall have full jurisdiction to inquire into, hear and determine any application by or on behalf of any party interested.
I need, not take up the time of the House by reading the section, which recites the full powers of the board. But as will be seen by section 23, it was recognized by parliament that this matter could be dealt with outside and apart fi-om any particular application; that in a sense it did not require an individual, or individuals, or even communities, to make application to the board; but that of its own motion the board could take into considei-ation the whole subject, and make special provision regarding this or that particular ci'ossing. Now it would be absurd to expect that you could frame a section that would be properly applicable to every railway in this country, it would be absurd to require that it should be so applicable. Because we have railways and railways; we have railways in many sections of the country where thei-e is only one train a day, we have other railways along which scoi-es of trains pass daily. This House could not expect to fi-arne a regulation or a section of the Act that would be applicable to all alike.


William Findlay Maclean: Why not ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Because the conditions are different, because circumstances do not require it; and under the law and policy adopted by this parliament in the Railway Act of 1903, they gave to this board the special power of dealing, or legislating, if you will, respecting the different crossings and different railways throughout the land. They practically gave the board the power of legislating, with the circumstances of each particular case before them; and the board, with full knowledge of the requirements and needs of the locality in question, can very easily and very readily frame a regulation or pass an order to meet the difficulty, and the circumstances and conditions of each case, removing any grievance and making the lives of the people safer. In this way the board could gain its object without doing any great injury, as would be the result if you had a hard and fast law applicable to every railway in the country. The Act says:	' The board
may of its own motion, or shall upon the request of the minister ' deal with any grievance arising with respect to any crossing. Previous to passing the Act of 1908, the usual course was to make application direct. I think, to the Department of Railways and Canals, and then these matters were referred to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. The evidence could be heard, either orally, or written documents could be placed before that committee dealing with the matter. They had full knowledge of all the circumstances, they could make special orders, and in that way this difficulty has been solved in the past. The law of 1903 merely created another tribunal, giving them even greater power, giving them full power to deal with these questions, and charging them with the duty of dealing with any alleged grievance after Inquiring into all the circumstances of the case. Now last winter exception was taken to this fact because it required you to deal at once regarding the rate of speed. There is no one at all familiar with the running of railway trains who is not aware that there are towns and communities where the number of crossings is so great that it is necessary to take special care, that special safeguards should be provided, that special watchmen should be required; while a neighbouring crossing would not need the same care or attention. The conditions, I say, are different; and I think that parliament very wisely created a body to deal with this very question, a body that can have expert evidence before it', a body whose officers are charged with the duty of inquiring into grievances such as my hon. friend would seek to remedy by his amendment. Of course it is important in the public Interest that great care should be taken by parliament in making regulations for railways that run through cities and towns. Parliament has recognized that, and has provided means whereby the public can be pro-101
tected, and is protected, whereby the lives of the people are protected. It seems to me there could be no more efficient way of doing this than the mode that parliament has provided in this instance.
It is only two years ago that parliament decided on this policy of regulating railway crossings by a board of commissioners. That board has only been in existence a year and a half, and I think it has discharged its duties well and wisely, and has given very great satisfaction. I do not think my hon. friend has shown any cause why the powers of the Railway Commission should be in any way limited or restricted. There has be.en no good reason shown by him why we should take from them the right to regulate this very matter. You might as well say that here we shall have a special Act relating to freight tariffs. Provision is made whereby that commission can regulate freight and passenger tariffs. Surely that board Is much more competent to deal with that matter, surely that board can deal with it much better than either this House or a committee of this House. The policy has been adopted. Why should it be changed? I think my hon. friend has entirely failed to give any good or substantial reason why it should be. We have listened to him with pleasure this year as we listened to him last year not merely on the floor of this House but in the Railway Committee room. He certainly entertained us and


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He wants to convince not entertain you. Entertaining is no good.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend has entirely failed to convince us, but I was willing to recognize his success in entertaining us.


William Findlay Maclean: It was fine entertainment for that family of three people who were killed at St. Catharines.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Unfortunate accidents occur unquestionably and I am not in any sense seeking to avoid protecting the public in respect to railway accidents. I am not doing that but I am endeavouring to point out that parliament has provided the machinery and the means whereby the public can be protected.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The machinery is not working.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The machinery is in excellent working order.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is not doing anything.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Act is there ; the power is there. The question, of course, as to whether there could be a general section that would apply uniformly to the whole country I think is one that would be very difficult to solve.


John Graham Haggart: What would ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It would be very difficult to have a general law affecting crossings and the speed of trains that would be applicable to the various conditions that are to be found in connection with the railways of Canada. There are always questions arising as to the interpretation of Acts of parliament. My hon. friend has read to us to-day the decision of the Supreme Court, and in that way he has demonstrated that able jurists differ as to the interpretation to be put upon statutes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then why not make it clear ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Precisely ; we have made it clear. It is clear because we have given power to the Railway Commissioners to deal with the matter. They can make special order. Section 227 of the Railway Act specially says :
The hoard may limit' such speed in any case to any rate which it deems expedient.
They may go below the ten miles an hour limit ; in fact, the board have every jurisdiction and control over speed, and under these conditions I do not see why we are called upon to in any way interfere or limit their powers in that respect. They can certainly deal with the special conditions and circumstances very much better than the members of this House can. If we could have every type of conditions, and if we could have all the circumstances relating to each particular crossing in the country, we might classify them and apply to certain conditions certain kinds of protection and safeguards while in reference to another classification of conditions there would be an entirely different set of safeguards.


John Graham Haggart: Does the hon. minister hold that the board can alter or amend by regulations or rules clause 227 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) understood me to make that statement he certainly misunderstood me.


John Graham Haggart: I understood the hon. gentleman to say so.


Henry Robert Emmerson: What I was trying to point out-perhaps I was doing it very imperfectly-was that the board have power to legislate in respect to every particular crossing in Canada in connection with every particular railway. They have complete power under that section 227 to go further than does my hon. friend with his amendment. Under section 227 the board can pass legislation in respect to the speed, they can legislate upon conditions, they can widen out their orders, they can impose terms and they can make the conditions more binding than even the section of my hon. friend. That in no way amends section 227, but when section 227 delegated and Mr. EMMERSON.
wisely delegated to the commissioners these legislative powers, because they are in a sense legislative powers and powers that can be exercised or legislation that can be enacted with a full knowledge of the conditions and circumstances, it enabled them more successfully to frame their regulations than we could by any general regulation such as is proposed by my hon. friend. Section 23 of the Railway Act provides :
The board shall have full jurisdiction to inquire into, hear and determine any application by or on behalf of any party interested ;
(a)	Complaining that the company, or any person, has failed to do any act, matter or thing required to be done by this Act, or the Special Act, or by any regulation, order or direction made thereunder, by the Governor in Council, the board, the minister, or any inspecting engineer, or has done or is doing any act, matter or thing contrary to, or in violation of this Act, or the Special Act, or any such regulation, order, or direction ;
(b)	Requesting the board to make any order, or give any direction, sanction or approval, which by law it is authorized to make or give ;
And the board may order and require any company or person to do forthwith, or within or at any specified time, and in any manner prescribed by the board, so far as is not inconsistent with this Act, any act, matter or thing which such company or person is or may be required to do under this Act, or the Special Act, and may forbid the doing or continuing of any act, matter or thing which is contrary to this Act, or the Special Act, and shall have full jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters whether of law or of fact, and shall, as respects the attendance and examination of witnesses, the production and inspection of documents, the enforcement of its orders, the entry on and inspection of property, and other matters necessary or proper for the due exercise of its jurisdiction under this Act, or otherwise for carrying this Act into effect, have all such powers, rights and privileges as are vested in a Superior Court.
Now under that clause it will be recognized that parliament intended that this board should have ample power to not merely frame regulations, but to enforce them.
The decision of the board upon any question of fact and as to whether any company, municipality or person is, or is not, a party interested within the meaning of this section, shall be binding and conclusive upon all companies and persons and in all courts.
My hon. friend goes on to say that you must make application, yon must employ lawyers, you must go before them as you would before any court. Under the section which follows, the board may act of its own motion without any application, if it comes to their knowledge in any way either by the report of its engineers, a simple letter or a verbal utterance that a grievance exists. A verbal utterance would be sufficient to put the machinery in motion or-
They shall upon the request of the minister, &c.
If an applicant were to come to the Department of Railways and Canals, if com-

plaint were made with respect to the crossing over here in Hull or at any point in Canada the Minister of Railways, under this Act, has the power to direct the hoard to deal with the matter, not at the expense of the applicants, nof at the expense of the people of the country ; the board can deal with it regardless of individuals, regardless of corporations, simply as a duty which has been imposed upon them by the pari'ament of Canada, and I am sure that the contention of my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) that it would be a laborious task, that it would be an expensive luxury to have these remedies applied by the board is certainly without foundation. My hon. friend, I am sure will agree with me in the statement that simply sitting down and writing the facts and addressing a letter to the Department of Railways and Canals is not very expensive. The party writing would be put to the expense of providing stationery, but he would not even have to place a postage stamp upon the letter ; he would simply have to mail the letter and the machinery provided by this Act would be set in motion and the remedy can be applied.	[DOT]


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Nothing has been done; it is in the same condition as it always was.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Nothing has been done?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is in the same dangerous condition it always was.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is some particular crossing which my hon. friend has in his mind ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The one I referred to.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My attention has not been directed to any crossing. It is quite apparent, in reviewing the whole facts, that parliament adopted a certain policy ; parliament concurred in the enactment of a law giving certain power to this tribunal. That tribunal is efficiently exercising its powers and jurisdiction. My hon. friend, I think, has not shown any good and sufficient reason why there should be a reversal of that policy or why we should take from this board powers which it now enjoys. It does not seem, to me at least, that his proposed am

endment would in any sense meet the difficulty as well as it has been met to-day by the present powers of the board.


Mr. G. W. FOWLER (King's and Albert).: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister, while he denied that the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) had been able to convince the House, was willing to admit that he had been somewhat entertaining. Candour compels me to say that the minister has been neither convincing nor entertaining. The hon. gentleman has not ventured to deny the absolute necessity which exists for some measure to be taken in order to protect people at level crossings iu this country.
My hon. friend is a man of considerable nerve, but he would scarcely have nerve enough to make a denial of that proposition. There is not a week but that you read in newspapers of the death of some person at these level crossings. In my own town, through which the Intercolonial Railway, over which the hon. gentleman presides- and so successfully (?) presides-only the other day a young lady crossing the track was killed by a train which was running at a speed of between 40 and 50 miles an hour through the very heart and business centre of the town where hundreds of people cross the track during the business hours of the day, where there was no protection whatever, neither gates nor watchman. Trains are allowed to come in there at all rates of speed, from 25 miles an hour up to 60 and 70 miles an hour. A number of other deaths have occurred at this same crossing. I have here in the Stratford 'Daily Herald' of January 28, the report of the killing of a man by a Grand Trunk Railway train at a crossing a few miles east of a little town called Shakespeare and the coroner's inquest in that case is now going on. This is a matter of very grave importance. These railways are soulless corporations; they are more interested in getting dividends than in safeguarding the lives of the people. We, as representatives of the people, have that duty to perform, and it is for us to see that legislation is enacted that will prevent the railways from making this wholesale slaughter of human life. I have given some attention to this matter and the result of my observation is that I do not believe there is a single instance of a person being killed by a railway train in which the fatality was not directly or indirectly the result of carelessness by some person. Trains are allowed to pass through settlements at speeds varying from 40 to 60 miles an hour, right in the heart of thickly settled towns or villages. It is outrageous. What is the remedy suggested by the minister ? He says that this Railway Commission will look after this matter. This Railway Commission does not sltrike me as being in a position to look after anything. It may have a tail but it lias no head, and the head is supposed to be the thinking and acting and doing part of anybody.
The Railway Commission is overloaded with work at the present time; and yet the hon. minister would have us believe that this commission is ready to visit all the towns from the Atlantic to the Pacific and inspect the level crossings wherever necessary. Was there ever so absurd a contention put forward by a man in his position? The hon. minister cites section 24 of the Act, which provides that the board may of its own motion do so-and-so. As I understand there are many pressing cases at the present time which the Commissioners have not adjudicated upon; and yet the hon. gentleman would leave this whole matter to their

action. Now, this difficulty could be wholly remedied by' the adoption of the very effective general clause proposed by my hon. friend from Lincoln. The minister would have us believe that it is the proper thing to have special legislation for each particular case. We do not want special legislation in this country; we want general legislation, which will treat all places alike. What special circumstances can exist in any particular place to justify it being exempted from the operation of the general law? My hon. friend never gave us any reason to show why any town or village in this country could justly be exempted in this way, because he could not. There is no case which a general Act could coyer so well. What does the hon. member for Lincoln wish to do? He simply wishes this House to make a declaration which will state the meaning of the law clearly and distinctly so that there would be no doubt about it. The hon. minister put it forward as a reason why this legislation should not pass, that great judges had differed as to the meaning of the present Act. Could there be a stronger reason in favour of the proposed amendment, in order that these great minds may not differ. The commissioner's, in their rules and regulations, require that every proceeding taken before the board under the Act shall be taken either by the applicant or his solicitor; and in cases relating to level crossings * two or three years might elapse before a judgment could be got, if we are to judge by the past history of the Railway Commission. This could all be remedied by adopting the very effective clause proposed by the hon. member for Lincoln, who is entitled to a hearty meed of thanks from the people of this country not only for what he has already done in connection with this matter, but for the legislation which he introduced in the last session of parliament, and which the government, although they opposed it at first, were at last brought to believe in and adopt. X fail to see that that hon. minister has answered the argument of the hon. member for Lincoln in any way, and I think this Bill should pass.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Railways and Canals has laid down the doctrine that we should not classify incidents, and having classified them, meet them by a general proposition. He has taken for granted that once we have this Railway Act, no amendments are to be brought forward. Now, I take it that that Railway Act will be ineffective, if it is not constantly reinforced by new legislation; and there is good reason for the amendment proposed to-day. It deals with a number of cases that are peculiarly alike-cases that may occur in incorporated villages, towns and cities, and for which there is sufficient cause for a general Act governing them. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals says we should leave 1 Mr. FOWLER.
these matters to the commissioners. It is true that they might make a general rule governing them; but we do not know when any such remedy will be applied by the commissioners, and so we come to parliament for such a genial rule. This is only one incident. There are hundreds of grievances in this country that could be speedily and easily remedied by amendments to the law-by inserting more definitions in it. I contend that a splendid case has been made cut in favour of this amendment, which is in the direction of protecting the rights of the people. The lives of the Kings subjects ai'e of more value than the interests of the railways. The people are being mowed down every day. In the city of Toronto the other day there was a collision at one of these crossings between an electric car and a railway train by which five or more people were killed; and the same thing is happening in other parts of the country. The people look to parliament to make the law and the Commission to enforce it. We are at the mercy of this commission, which is to-day without a head. Therefore parliament ought to pass' a law defining what protection shall be provided at crossings. That is a reasonable proposition, and the principle under which we bring it forward is the general principle that the more experience we have of this Railway Act, the more necessity there will be for parliament to introduce additional definitions into it. On that ground, I say parliament is well within its rights in constantly amending and extending the operation of this Act, and not leaving these matters to the mercy of the railway commissioners. I trust that the House will be prepared not only to make this amendment, but many other amendments to that Act, whenever a general proposition can be outlined and put into a Bill. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) has shown that these incidents are all of one kind, and that the public rights can be protected by a general law, instead of being left to the mercy of either the courts or the railway commissioners. I am sick and tired of hearing talk about going to the courts and to the Privy Council to obtain protection for the rights of the people instead of going to parliament. This is the place for redressing grievances and protecting the rights of the people; but we find hon. gentleman opposite, as usual, against the rights of the people, and in favour of increased rights for the railway companies.


Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. John).: 
Mr. W. M. GERMAN (Welland).: There can be no doubt that there exists a crying grievance throughout tbe country with regard to the speed at which railway trains run through thickly-peopled portions of towns and villages. I know that the grievance exists in the county 1 have the honour to represent, and some means should certainly be devised to overcome it. Whether the means proposed furnishes the proper remedy or not can he left to the Railway Committee to decide. No doubt the Railway Commission has power to enforce rules and regulations regarding the speed of trains and the protection that shall be afforded the general public, but tbe difficulty that exists is this :	The Railway
Commission does not act, and the people do not bring the matter to the attention of that commission. It would take a very long time indeed to get the Railway Commission to decide on all the questions iu dispute between tlie railway companies and the public regarding what protection should be placed at the different highway crossings in the thickly-peopled portions of towns and villages.


John Graham Haggart: Would you not think it was the duty of the Railway Commission to make general rules and regulations with regard to crossings ?


William Manley German: But the Railway Commission have not made any such rules, and we have no expectation that they will.


John Graham Haggart: If my hon. friend will read clause 25 of the Act, he will find that it is the duty of the Railway Commission to make these rules.


William Manley German: Well, all I can say is that they have not done, and, from present

appearances, they are not likely to do it very soon. There Is strong complaint, throughout Ontario at any rate, from many of the thickly-peopled portions of towns and villages, that proper protection is not afforded the public. For my part, I am in favour of this Bill going to the Railway Committee. If, in the meantime, the Railway Commission will meet and promulgate satisfactory rules and regulations, these should he accepted as sufficient; but unless they do so, 1 think this parliament should pass a law to overcome the difficulty regardless of the action of the Railway Committee.


John Graham Haggart: My hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) has introduced again the Bill which he presented to this House first a couple of years ago. I had not had the pleasure of hearing his argument before, but I have listened with attention to what he said this evening. The clause of the old Act which he read provides:
No locomotive or railway engine shall pass in or through any thickly peopled portion of any city, town or village, at a speed greater than six miles an hour, unless the track is fenced in the manner prescribed by this Act.
I do not know how language could be plainer that that. My hon. friend states that the judge who tried the case in the first instance decided it in one way, and his decision was sustained by the Court of Appeal. The case then came to the Supreme Court, and that court reversed the decision of the courts below. He says also that, in order that the law might remain as the Supreme Court has decided it, the company paid the claim thus making an appeal unnecessary. The section I have quoted is from tiie Act 55-56 Victoria. Is that the wording of the Act at present ? The words of the present Act are as follows :
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

That is the wording of the old Act, but it goes on :

or properly protected in the manner prescribed by this Act.
In order to understand both clauses we need to know what is meant by ' properly fenced' in the old Act and 'properly fenced or protected ' in the Act of 1903.	I have not had the opportunity of looking at the Act 55-56 Victoria, but my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) has shown what the words mean. As to the present law, I think, there can be no meaning other than that no railway company lias a right to run any train through the thickly peopled portion of any city, town or village, at a speed greater than ten miles an hour, unless the Board of Railway Commissioners orders otherwise. Look at the powers of the board. The board may make orders and regulations as to the speed Mr. GERMAN.
of trains, as to the use of steam whistles, as to the passing from car to car, as to the coupling of cars or shelter to be provided for employees. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson) says it would be impossible to make regulations fixing the speed of trains generally, because they may have to vary in different places. My contention is that the Act imposes upon the commissioners the duty-although the word used is ' may ' -to make regulations and rules in reference to all these subjects, and that where it is desired that the rules shall not be applicable to a particular case an order may he made applying to that case. So, it seems to me that the law plainly is that, until rules and regulations are passed by the Board of Railway Commissioners, no train may pass in or, through any thickly peopled portion of any city, town or village, at a speed greater than ten miles an hour. I do not think that the amendment by my hon. friend from Lincoln could make the law any plainer or any stronger. I may be mistaken, and the courts may hold that the view I express is not the correct one. At the same time, I do not know any words in the English language which could more clearly limit the powers of the railway company to run trains at a rate faster than ten miles an hour, unless the track is fenced or properly protected in the manner prescribed by the Act, and the meaning of those words has been set forth by the hon. member for Welland. We have given the power to the Railway Commission, and if that body does not exercise that power, it ought to do so. There are other ways, perhaps, in which protection for the public at these crossings might be better provided than by having gates or watchmen. There is a plan at present in use in portions of Canada and the United States by which a train, long before it reaches a crossing sets a bell ringing. Surely, a railway company ought to be allowed to provide protection of that kind wherever it is the best that can be provided.
I suppose it is of sufficient importance to receive the fullest consideration from the committee and from the Minister of Railways, and the minister ought to have a policy in regard to the Bill and to state that policy to the House.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr.   I@: The Bill introduced by my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) asking that parliament give better protection at level railway crossings, is one that should receive careful consideration at the hands of this parliament. Many years ago when the question of better protection at level crossings was up for discussion, the people were told to go with their cases to the Railway Committee of the

Privy Council, and that their grievances would be redressed. The people were not satisfied with that recourse, they did not get much remedy. At previous sessions of parliament we were told, when the question came up for consideration, and the people were agitated about it, that they would have to wait until the Railway Commission was inaugurated. Well, that commission was inaugurated iu 1903, and from that moment until this moment I do not think there is one case in all Canada where better protection has been given to the public. Therefore, whether the power rests with the Railway Committee of the Privy Council or whether it was given to the Railway Commission board is not very important in so far as the public are concerned; for neither from the one or the other have they been able to receive such protection as I think the-people of Canada are entitled to. X had the honour of bringing this Question myself to the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals in 1903. when the Railway Bill was up for discussion. I moved this amendment, which will be found on page 6257 of the 'Hansard' of 1903:
Every company shall provide and maintain at all level crossings within cities, towns and villages, whether incorporated or otherwise, such gates, electric bells or subways as may be sufficient for the protection of persons using the streets or highways.
The Minister of Railways speaking to that amendment, said :
It is useless to put that on the statute bool: for the reason that the Railway Commission have power to do it, and will do it when they commence their work.
We have examples of this in every county in Canada, i In my own county the Grand Trunk Railway Company constructed a line from Toronto to Hamilton, with one track. At that time the trains did not run very fast, and at villages in the southern part of my own county there. was no protection whatever at level crossings. After a few years had elapsed the Grand Trunk constructed another track, making a double track between Toronto and Hamilton, and on that double track the Grand Trunk uot only run their own trains but the Canadian Pacific Railway has running rights over that road. Now trains are running over that road at the rate of forty and forty-five miles an hour, passing through important villages at that high rate of speed, yet there is no better protection for tiie public than there was when there was only one track and trains were running at a low rate of speed:	It does seem to
me that when such changes are taking place the public should be considered, either by this parliament or by the Railway Commission. The Minister of Railways and Canals answered the amendment I introduced in 1903 by saying that the question of better protection at railway crossings
would be dealt with by the commission, and we took him at his word. In the town of Brampton where I live, there is a very dangerous crossing, one that Inis caused the people of that community a good deal of anxiety, and at which a number of persons have been killed during the last few years. The mayor of that corporation had a resolution passed by the council, and plans were prepared showing the dangerous condition of the railway crossing there. These plans were submitted to the Railway Commission, at one of their sessions, held in the city of Toronto, accompanied by every measurement that was necessary, pointing out that houses were constructed close to this crossing, and that when the public were passing over it they would not see fast running trains. We placed before the Commission Board the very same information that we had placed before the Committee of the Privy Council and with exactly the same result, that we got no satisfaction whatever. It is not enough for the government to say now that they have transferred from this parliament to the Railway Commission power to deal with cases of this kind. What the public desire is that either the government or the Railway Commission should see to it that the law* is enforced, if we have such a law, and that better protection is given. My hon. friend from Lincoln has brought the matter to the attention of the government at former sessions of parliament. Petitions have been presented from almost every municipality in this country where there are large towns and cities, almost every municipality has had some trouble with this question. I am of the opinion that general legislation should be enacted. It may be said that perhaps the same danger does not exist in every town. I am of the opinion that while there are towns that do not require special protection at railway crossings because the population is not large and the traffic is not great; still I think it would be better to have legislation so that special cases may be dealt with by the Railway Commission rather than that every case should be dealt witli by it. I am in thorough accord with the Bill introduced by my hon. friend. Perhaps it can be improved upon, but I think the hon. member for Lincoln should receive the co-operation of the government so that legislation may be enacted at this session which will give better protection to the public at level railway crossings in every part of Canada.


Mr. ALFRED H. CLARKE (South Essex).: I entirely agree with the object of the Bill which has been introduced by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), and if there were no existing provisions to protect the public otherwise than by this Bill, I would be strongly disposed to support it. But it appears to me there are two or three reasons why this question can be better dealt with bv the Railway Commission than

by laying down one uniform rate of speed at all places in the same town. I come from a constituency where we have two or three trunk lines, and where there has been a good deal of complaint about the rate of speed at which trains have run in going through some of the towns. The difficulty we find is not so much, or not altogether, the rate of speed, but that at some of the crossings there are obstructions, there are buildings in some places which obstruct not only the sound but the sight of trains. It seems to me proper that in those cases there should be a different rate of speed. I do not think ten miles an hour is slow enough at some crossings in some towns and cities; in others ten miles may be a sufficient protection. I think therefore that inasmuch as varying conditions exist, the Railway Commission can better deal with this question, and fix a low rate of speed where there is a dangerous crossing, as they have a right to do. and perhaps another rate of speed at another crossing, in order to do complete justice according to the circumstances which may arise. Another difficulty frequently arises in determining whether or not a particular crossing is in a thickly-peopled part of a city, town or village, so as to have tlie benefit, of the protection contemplated by the Act, and persons suffering damages are uncertain as to their legal rights.
One jury may say that a certain crossing is located in a thickly peopled part ; another jury may say that it is not a thickly peopled part. The Railway Commission may say that at a certain crossing a certain rate of speed may be established and that at certain other crossings a certain other rate of speed may be permitted, and if there is any grievance in respect to any particular crossing there will be no trouble in bringing the matter before the Railway Commission. My experience with the Railway Commission has not been that it is a difficult matter to get before them. We had a difference with the Fere Marquette Railway Company in regard to their service, a letter was sent to the hou. the Minister of Railways and Canals and immediately the matter was taken up by the commission and relief given. Its proceedings were prompt and expeditious, and it is a body that can do complete justice to every case. I think it is better, until we find that the Railway Commission does not afford the remedies to the public which they are entitled to, that we should not depart from the course which this House has so recently committed itself to, of leaving these matters to be disposed of by that tribunal.
Mr. DAVID HENDERSON I Dalton). Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to continue the discussion of the question along the legal lines. That feature has been very well dealt with by the hon. member (Mr. Lancaster) who has introduced the Bill. I shall


Alfred Henry Clarke: simply content myself by pointing out to the committee and to the government that conditions prevail in the country, in the rural sections as well as in the incorporated towns and villages, that may require the attention of those in authority. I will give an illustration * with which I am familiar, taken from the county I have the honour to represent, where, between Toronto and Hamilton, as has been referred to by my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain), there are a great many trains passing every day. I know of one crossing where, I was informed, during the time X visited that section of the country, that as many as from 75 to 80 trains cross the public highway between two villages inside of 24 hours. It does seem to me that, if. in the outskirts of iilcorporated villages and towns, additional precaution is required, those in the country are fairly entitled also to protection. From 75 to 80 trains a day Is a large number, and there is nearly as much risk to the public on a rural highway that is very frequently travelled as there is in the towns and villages. My object in rising is simply to say that if the matter is to receive more careful consideration from this House, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) and the government, there are many sections of the country that demand similar protection to that which would be afforded by this Bill in villages and towns.


Mr. G. H. PER LEY (Argenteuil).: Mr. Chairman, although a new member, I feel I should say a few words in support of this Bill or rather in support of the principle of it. I know it is very difficult for the government to deal with this question, but at the same time no one can dispute that the people have a grievance in regard to the crossings in towns and villages. I understood the hon. member for St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) to say that he did not think any case had been made out. It seems to me that the mere fact that so many people are killed from week to week and month to month is quite sufficient to make out a case for this House to deal with. It is evident that the machinery for getting at this matter in a practical way is not sufficient. We all know that the Railway Commission has power to deal with it. Nobody disputes that, but at the same time 1 do not think any one can dispute the fact that it is an expensive proceeding for any town or village to come before the commission here in Ottawa and get a grievance righted in regard to a certain particular crossing. The hon Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) has referred to the permissive clause of this Act, by which the Railway Commission 'may take the matter in hand without being asked to. From experience we all know that these permissive clauses very seldom amount to much and particularly with a body which has now so much to do and before which there will be more and more cases coming as time

goes on. It is not at all likely nor is It in human nature that the board would wish to take up these matters unless they are brought to its notice. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals claims that because this House has given the commission power to deal with these matters, therefore, this House should leave the commission alone. The commission is the creature of this parliament and if there is something in the Act which ought to be remedied, I cannot see that that is any argument why this parliament should not provide the remedy. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals deliberately neglected lo express any opinion on the merits of this question, and it seems to me that that is the fair way for the members of this House to consider the question which is of so much interest to the people at large. No doubt, towns and villages differ, as the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals stated, in their requirements, but at the same time I do not know of any town or village in which it is right or proper that a railway company should run a train at the rate of forty or fifty miles an hour without protection for the public ; and certainly the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals did not give us the name of any such town or village, even if he knew of one himself. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that something ought to be done to make it easier for the public to get their rights. I am sure that in so far as the actual wording of the Bill is concerned the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals and others of more experience will be able to say whether it ought to be worded exactly as it is, but I certainly feel that it is right for this House and the government to take this matter into their consideration and pass some such legislation of a general character as will meet the requirements of the case. I do not think that the people ought to be left to come to the commission and fight out these matters in detail as they now have to do.


Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice).: Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure we all agree with the object which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) who introduced this Bill had in view ; that is to say the fuller protection of life and property at level crossings throughout the cities, towns and villages of Canada. At the same time it is important for us to realize what the legislation at the present time is and to ascertain, if possible, how far an improvement in the direction which my hon. friend wishes to go and in which we sympathize with him, would be accomplished by the legislation that he has introduced. It seems to me that it is impossible to imagine that this House could possibly incorporate a railway company that would not at some point pass through a city, town or incorporated village, and in passing through a city, town or incorporated village of necessity it must
cross some one of the highways in these cities, towns and villages. What is the law in such a case ? The law is that no railway can cross a highway in any city, town or village except with the previous consent of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and the law is that this Board iOf Railway Commissioners must determine the conditions under which this railway can cross the highway. Now, if the railway is already in existence over the highway it is still within the power of the Railway Commissioners to alter the conditions under which that railway crosses the highway ; so you have in the' Board of Railway Commissioners at the present time the power to determine the conditions under which the crossing is to be made and the power to regulate a crossing already in existence.


Mr. COCHRANE.: But they do not do it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend will exercise a little patience, please. What did my hon. friend seek to do by his legislation, and what would be the effect of the legislation he is introducing ? There should be, it seems to me, no doubt that railway crossings must of necessity exist under different conditions, and you must deal with each crossing in the light of the local conditions. For instance, you would not pretend to regulate a crossing in the heart of a great city in the same way and to make it subject to the same conditions as you would a crossing in the outskirts of some obscure village. You must bear in mind the conditions existing at each crossing. What would be the result of the proposed legislation if we adopted it 1 The result would be that the Railway Commissioners would not have a free hand, but that they would be obliged to determine that at each railway crossing, whatever might be the local conditions, there must be either one of two things-either a watchman or a gate. No discretion is to be exercised if the crossing is in the heart of Montreal, or, as I said, on the outskirts of some obscure village anywhere throughout the Dominion of Canada. The conditions of crossing would require to be settled by the Board of Railway Commissioners in absolutely the same way in all caShs.


George Eulas Foster: How is it now ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Now it is subject to the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


George Eulas Foster: But under a condition imposed by parliament ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not quite understand.


George Eulas Foster: As to speed.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In the absence of regulations, the speed cannot exceed 10 miles an hour.


George Eulas Foster: But they can regulate ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: They can regulate that speed so as to make it less than 10, or they may permit them to proceed at a higher rate, provided that proper precautions are taken at the crossing.


George Eulas Foster: Can the Board set aside a law of parliament ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Of course, they can, when the law provides that they shall have the power to do so.


George Eulas Foster: Does it provide that power ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Of course, it does ; the section-No. 186, I think-says that positively.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if I have stated the conditions correctly, namely, that the Board of Railway Commissioners have the power to determine the conditions under which a crossing can be made on the level, then the only question to be considered further by this House is as to whether or not the Board of Railway Commissioners can be moved to interfere in each particular case. It is not necessary that the Board of Railway Commissioners should deal with each case in each municipality, but it is free to the Board to determine the conditions under which all the level crossings in any municipality shall he regulated. They shall have the right to determine the conditions for the whole municipality at one time. And then the question comes up as to whether or not it Is an obligation on the individual to go to the Board of Railway Commissioners and complain of the conditions existing at each crossing, or whether or not by some other method the Board can be moved to take action. Let us see what happens.


Edward Cochrane: Nothing happens.


Charles Fitzpatrick: As a rule, the conditions are that a railway crossing is dangerous to all persons in a particular locality. No one individual is affected by that exclusively, but dozens of those who use that crossing are affected, and as a result those individuals would all of necessity make application to their municipal council. Through this body the municipality would act; if a railway crossing dangerous to the life of the individual existed within the municipality, the corporation of the municipality would take action, and, if the corporation did not take action, we all know how prone our electors are to go to members of parliament, and if they draw the attention of members of parliament to the fact, all the members would have to do would be to draw the attention of the minister to the existence of the dangerous crossing, and then the Act provides that the minister, of his own motion, can set the machinery of the Board of Railway Commissioners in action and have the matter regulated, so that you will have either the individual con-


George Eulas Foster: ; cerned with the crossing acting through the [* municipal council, or else they can act - through their member, and in this way >
bring pressure to bear on the minister. It seems to me that these are conditions which , would commend themselves to this House,
' and that the members will see how reasonable it is to allow this matter to be dealt , with by that Board which this parliament * has created for the purpose of dealing with questions of this sort. I quite understand that it is exceedingly important that public attention should be drawn to the conditions existing at these crossings, and espe-; cially that the attention of the Board of : Railway Commissioners should be drawn, and this discussion is an important diseus-: sion from that standpoint. It is important that the Board should know, as they will learn as a result of this discussion, that these dangerous railway crossings exist at different places, and that parliament expects them to provide a remedy for these dangerous conditions. My suggestion would be, under the circumstances-because, after all, this is an important matter, and affects not only the individuals and municipalities, but the railway corporations as well-I know it is not popular in this House to speak in the interests of railway corporations, but, so far as I am concerned, at all events, I think that a railway corporation is entitled to justice as well as a municipality or an individual-I consider that under the conditions that arise here, it is proper that we should refer this matter to the Railway Committee, so that the Railway Committee may hear all those who are interested further, and if further light comes to us it is possible that we might all change our minds and endeavour to introduce legislation which would be effective if it is necessary to do so. I would therefore concur in the second reading of this Bill, with the understanding that it should go to the Railway Committee for further consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice) moved that the Bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: Mr. Speaker, before that motion is put, 1 desire to say a word or two. Those of us who were in the House last parliament will remember that many public bills were referred to the Railway Committee, and nothing came of any of them. No amendment was made unless a Bill was considered and dealt with in the Committee of the, Whole House, as Public Bills are supposed to be dealt with. I remember that the hon. member for St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) introduced very necessary legislation imposing on railways responsibility for fires caused by locomotives along the line

or their railway, and making them liable for damages to the people whose property along the railway was injured by such fires. That Bill was introduced in two different sessions and sent to the Railway Committee, but nothing came of it on either occasion. When we were considering in the House the general Bill consolidating the general Act that amendment Became law. Then Mr. Cowan, who represented Essex, introduced in two different sessions a Bill relating to drainage under railways, legislation which was very much needed in the interests of the farming community, particularly Ontario. That Bill was sent to the Railway Committee each session, but nothing came of it until, in 1903, we were considering in the Committee of the Whole House the Bill to consolidate the General Railway Act, when it, too, was adopted and became law.
I could instance other Bills. For in-stance, the Minister of Agriculture, in introducing any measure relating to his department, does not suggest that it should go to the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization. If he wants the Bill passed, if he is sincere, as I presume he is, and as I am to-night, he insists, as I do, upon the Bill being dealt with as all Public Bills are, by being referred to the Committee of the Whole House. I could instance many other cases. When the Minister of Justice last session introduced an amendment to the Railway Act, the same Act that I am endeavouring to have amended to-night, he did not say that he wanted the Bill to go to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, although the railways were interested in that Bill to a much larger extent than they are in mine, in order that the railways might be heard on the question, and that those who were against the railways might also be heard. He took the regular course of moving that the House go into Committee of the Whole on the Bill. It was dealt with as all Public Bills are; it was discussed in Committee of the Whole House and there only. What was right with regard to the Minister of Justice amendment to the Railway Act of 1903 is equally right with regard to the amendment of the member for Lincoln to the same Act. I submit, with all due deference, that this Bill ought to be dealt with by the Committee of the Whole House, and not be sent to the Railway Committee. That committee is only a cul (ie sac. a place that leads nowhere. The Bill must come back here. Suppose the committee endorses it, it has to come back here [DOT] and be dealt with by the whole House. Suppose, on the contrary, the committee say they do not think it ought to be passed, still it must come back here; they cannot keep it out of this House. It is only tying up the Bill for the session, as was done in the case of the cattle-guard legislation which was introduced by me for three sessions and was always sent to the Railway Committee and
smothered there-always killed in some way, but not on its merits; and finally the amendment was passed when the House was in Committee of the Whole on the General Railroad Consolidation Bill of 1903. With all these facts before us, with this knowledge, to which we cannot shut our eyes, as to what happens to public legislation that goes to the Railway Committee, I object to this Bill being sent there. I am not referring to Private Bills, which properly go there, and which, if condemned there, do not come back to the House at all. But Public Bills, properly so-called. I submit, should not be sent to the Railway Committee, and this Bill should be treated like all other Public Bills. There should be the same rule for all of us. We should now go into Committee of the Whole House and discuss this Bill; and I think we could put it into better shape than we could by wasting our time in the Railway Committee, having a lot of discussions and votes and hearing railway counsel and other people, who after all can tell us nothing that we cannot learn from our constituents. We are supposed to make the laws as we understand that our constituents want them ; and if the Minister of Justice or myself or any one else in this House wants to know what the views of the railway companies are, we are honest and intelligent enough to find them out as part of our duty, just as we find out the views of the rest of our constituents-because the railways are as much our constituents as other people. I submit, therefore, that we should deal with this Bill on the floor of this House, as we do with all other Public Bills. I do not think it is the proper course to send it to the Railway Committee, and I must ask the House to reject the motion of the Minister of Justice.
House divided on the motion of Mr. Fitzpatrick.
YEAS : Messieurs
Adamson,
Alcorn.
Archambault'.
Barker,
Beauparlant,
Beland,
Black.
Bole.
Borden (Sir Frederick), Bourassa,
Boyer,
Brodeur,
Brown,
Bureau,
Caldwell,
Calvert,
Campbell,
Carney,
Cash,
Clarke (Essex),
Copp,
Costigan,
LeBlanc,
Lefurgey, -Lemieux,
Logan,
Loggie,
Lovell,
Macdonald,
Macpherson,
McCarthy (Simeoe), McColl,
McIntyre,
Mclsaac,
McKenzie (Bruce), McKenzie
(Cape Breton, N.), McLennan,
Marcil (Bonaventure), Miller.
Parmelee,	'
Paterson,
PichS,
Pickup,

Crawford,	Prdfontaine,
Cyr,	Proulx,
Demers (St. John), *	Ratz,
Derbyshire,	Reid (Restigouche),
Emmerson,	Riley,
Finlayson,	Rivet,
Fisher.	Roche (Halifax),
Galliher,	Ross (Rimouski),
Gauvreau,	Ross (Yale-Cariboo),
Geoffrion,	Schell (Glengarry),
German,	Schell (Oxford),
Haggart,	Scott,
Harty.	Sloan,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.),	Stewart,
Jackson (Selkirk),	Talbot (Belleehasse),
Johnston (Lambton),	Talbot (Strathcona),
Kennedy,	Turgeon,
Lamont,	Turriff,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Watson,
Lavergne	Wilson (Russell),
(Drummond & Arth.), Law,	Wright (Renfrew)-85.
NAYS :	
Messieurs	
Ames,	Jackson (Elgin),
Armstrong,	Lake,
Avery,	Lalor,
Barr,	Lancaster,
Bergeron,	Lennox,
Blain,	Maclean (York, S.),
Bland,	Martin (Queen's, P.E.I.),
Broder,	Monk,
Chisholm,	Paquet,
Clare,	Perley,
Clements,	Porter,
Cochrane,	Roche (Marquette),
Crocket,	Schaffner,
Daniel,	Sproule,
Elson,	Staples,
Foster,	Stockton,
Fowler,	Taylor,
Ganong,	Walsh,
Gunn,	Wilmot,
Henderson,	Wilson
Herron,	(Lennox & Addington),
Hughes (Victoria),	Worthington,
Ingram,	Wright (Muskoka)-45.
Motion (Mr. Fitzpatrick) agreed to.



STEAMBOAT INSPECTION ACT.

Mr.  L. G.@: MCCARTHY (North Simcoe) moved second reading of Bill (No. 6) to amend the Steamboat Inspection Act of 1898. He said : The object of the Bill is to remedy a grievance which the marine engineers allege to have existed for some time past. They complain that the department, which now has power to issue permits, are thereby enabled to grant to men, who have not passed examination, certificates for the season to act as marine engineers. I have introduced this same Bill for two consecutive sessions. Last session it did not reach its second reading and the session before I agreed, owing to some objections, to allow it to stand. The Bill has since been pretty well circulated throughout the districts interested; and from what I have heard from the marine engineers themselves, the lumbermen who own tugs, and the fishermen who require tugs in their business, they desire to be Mr. LANCASTER.
given a hearing before a committee of the House. Since introducing the Bill I have found that there is a good deal of difference of opinion among the interests concerned, and after consultation with my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, I came to the conclusion that the wisest course would be to have a small special committee which would hear the parties interested and report to the House. Were we to discuss the matter here, I am afraid there would be much difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. From what I have heard from the different interests in my own constituency, it may be somewhat difficult to deal with the matter, and in justice to all parties interested, unless we hear from each class of persons what they have to say, the conclusion I have come to therefore is that the only satisfactory way to dispose of it would be to have the various parties interested brought before a special committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
Mr. MCCARTHY moved that the said Bill be referred to a special committee consisting of the following :	Johnston (Cape Breton),
E. F. Clarke, Bickerdike, Bennett, Johnston (Lambton), Lefurgey, Smith (Nanaimo), Lancaster, McPherson, Sproule, Prefontaine and the mover.
Motion agreed to.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.
George Eulas Foster: What business to-morrow ?


Wilfrid Laurier: We shall take up the Seed Bill and then the Census Bill and then go into Supply.


William Findlay Maclean: When does the government intend to take up the notice of motion with regard to the Chief Commissioner of the Railway Commission ?


Wilfrid Laurier: To-morrow we will take the notice stage. It will come up for discussion on Friday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 9 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, January 31, 1905.