1909-05-07

OP THE DEBATES OP THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OP THE DOMINION OF CANADA FIRST SESSION-ELEVENTH PARLIAMENT 9 EDWAED VII., 1909 VOL XCII COMP,RISING THE PERIOD1 PROM THE SEVENTH DAY OP MAY TO THE NINETEENTH DAY OP MAY, INCLUSIVE.


[Stage Direction]
Douse of Commons Debates

[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 7, 1909.

Mr.  J. A. C.@: ETHIER (Two Mountains) moved 'That the additional charge levied by rule 88, section 3, subsection 3 on Bill (No. 135), from the Senate, for the relief of Hannah Ella Tompkins, and on Bill (No. 157), from the Senate, for the relief of John Dennison Smith, be refunded in accordance with the recommendations contained in the seventh report of the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I would advise my hon. friend not to press this motion to-day as I wish to look into the matter. There may be some objection to it.
Mr. SPROULEf I hope this motion will not be pressed. Under our rules ample notice is given to the world as to the time when these Bills should be introduced in order that the business of parliament may be proceeded with expeditiously. When such Bills are not introduced within the time limit theTe is a penalty of an additional fee provided, and if we remit the penalty it is better we should have no rule at all. If we once pass such a motion as this we will establish a bad precedent.
Motion allowed to stand.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT-AMENDMENT

Mr.  J. W.@: EDWARDS (Frontenac) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 179) to amend the Canada Shipping Act.


Mr. BRODEUR.: Explain.


Mr. EDWARDS.: The amendment proposed by this Bill has been the subject of negotiations between the government of Ontario and the Dominion government, and of representations on the part of the Dominion Marine Association which represents practically all the vessel owners on the inland waters of Canada. By section 477 of the Canada Shipping Act there is a 187
discrimination against vessels in the province of Ontario which appears to me, and to others who are more directly interested, to be entirely unwarranted and unjustifiable. The section referred to exempts the following vessels from the compulsory payment of pilotage dues:
1.	Vessels employed in sailing from port to port in the same province.
2.	Employed in trading between any one or more ports of the province of Quebec New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and any other or others of them.
3.	Employed in voyages between any port or ports of any of the said provinces and the port of New York or any port of the United States of America on the Atlantic north of New York, or employed in voyages between any port in any of the said provinces and any port in Newfoundland.
Previous to June of last year, by subsection 5 exemption was granted to vessels with a draft when loaded not exceeding 16 feet and employed exclusively in voyages between any port or ports on the great lakes or any of the waters connecting those lakes, and any port or ports on the river St. Lawrence or between any ports on the river St. Lawrence. In the last hours of last session this section was repealed at a time when the Ontario vessel owners were urging their claims to have Ontario put on an absolute parity with the other provinces. Why should a vessel sailing from Montreal to Sydney or Halifax or Newfoundland or New York be exempt from compulsory payment of pilotage dues, and the same vessel if beginning her voyage at Owen Sound, or Toronto, or Kingston, or Brockville or any port in Ontario be obliged to pay these dues? Another point which makes this proposed. amendment all the more necessary is the working of by-law 25 of the Montreal Pilotage District which reads:
Every vessel liable to compulsory payment of pilot dues and moved into or out of the limits of the harbour of Montreal or from one point to another within the same shall pay such dues for the services of a branch pilot except in the case of vessels which are merely shifting their position at the wharf and attached thereto by their moorings.
Since Ontario vessels are the only ones obliged to pay pilotage dues under section



477 it follows that Ontario vessels alone come under the provisions of by-law 25, and therefore have to pay this additional tax from which the others are exempt. I wish to point out that notwithstanding this extra taxation and evident discrimination, the liability of the master or owner of the Ontario vessel is not lessened in the slightest degree, but on the contrary is emphasized. This is made abundantly clear by section 477 which reads:
Nothing in this part shall exempt any owner or master of any ship from liability for any loss or damage occasioned by his ship to any person or property on the ground either of such ship being in charge of a licensed pilot or of such loss or damage being - occasioned by the act or default of a licensed pilot, or on any ground.
This section makes it clear that Ontario vessel owners are discriminated against and put at a disadvantage in the carrying trade. I therefore propose this amendment which by inserting the word 'Ontario' in subsection 2 of section 474 will place the province of Ontario on an equality with the other provinces and will relieve Ontario vessel owners from this unfair discrimination and unjust tax. I might add that I hope the Minister of Marine will take this up as a government measure. There are many interests that want this amendment carried, there is no politics in it at all, and I hope the minister will see his way clear to have the Bill passed even at this late hour 'of the session.


Mr. CONMEB.: I wish to suggest to the hon. member that, as the Bill may not be reached this session, he could move an amendment to the Bill which the minister has on the Order Paper. I think the Bill is in the right direction, because it deals with a little hardship which the vessel owners of Ontario are complaining of, and I would like to see the minister embody its provisions in his Bill.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As my hon. friend's Bill will not probably be reached this session, I may be permitted to inform him that an order in council has been passed lately, providing that vessels from Ontario coming through the Lachine rapids and moving into the harbour of Montreal shall not be obliged to pay entrance pilotage dues. This was done in order to meet a serious complaint made by the Dominion Marine Association. The reason why the legislation was passed was to improve the safety of navigation in the St. Lawrence, and it was done at the request of the Shipping Federation.	i


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Is there power reserved in the statute to abrogate the regulations of the order in council.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No. The dues were imposed by order in council. They are not embodied in the legislation itself.


William Cameron Edwards: i	1


James Conmee: Suppose a vessel passes through the Lachine canal, and not through the rapids, must its owner employ one of these pilots?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The complaint was only in regard to the Lachine rapids.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. OLIVER moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that the ordinances of the 9th day of March, 1908, intituled: ' An ordinance respecting the hearing and decision of disputes in relation to mining lands in the Yukon Territory/ and the ordinance of the 17th day of September, last, intituled: 'An ordinance respecting the imposition of a tax upon ale, porter, beer and lager beer, imported into the Yukon Teritory,' which were passed upon their respective dates by the Governor in Council, under the authority of section 16 of the Yukon Act, being chapter 63, R.S.C., 1906, copies of which ordinances, as well as the necessary order in council in each case, have been laid before this House, are approvd by this House, in accordance with the provisions of section 17 of said chapter 63.
Robert Laird Borden: I think it would be well for the minister to read the ordinances so that we may see them in ' Hansard,' and then let this resolution stand in order that we may consider them, as I do not understand that they have been printed.


Mr. OLIVER.: They- hdve been laid on the table of the House in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the Yukon Act, but I do not think they have been distributed. The order in council of the 9th of March, 1908, is as follows:
The Governor General, in virtue of the powers vested in him by section 16 of the Yukon Act, chapter 63, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, and by and with the advice of the King's Privy Council for Canada, is pleased to enact as follows:-
The provisions contained in the order of the Governor General in Council of the 19th of February, 1907, whereby the Orders of the Governor General in Council of the 18th of March, 1901, and the 4th of June, 1902, being orders governing the hearing and decision of disputes in relation to mining lands in the Yukon Territory, were rescinded and certain other regulations substituted in lieu thereof, and in the order of the Governor General in Council of the 13th of July, 1907, whereby it was ordered that all unfinished cases pending in the Gold Commissioner's Court be transferred for adjudication to the territorial court, are hereby approved, ratified and confirmed.
The order in council of the 17th of September, 1908, is as follows:
Whereas by an ordinance of His Excellency the Governor General in Council, dated the

22ncl day of June, 1904, being an ordinance respecting tbe importation into the Yukon territory, of malt and spirituous or intoxicating liquors or other intoxicants and the traffic therein, provision was made that ale, porter, beer and lager beer shall after the coming into force of that ordinance, be admitted free into the territory; and Whereas on the 30th of July, 1908, the Com-misioner in Council of the Yukon Territory expressed by resolution the opinion that it would be a wise and just policy to impose a fee of fifty cents per gallon on all porter, beer and ales, which may in the future be imported into the territory, but that such tax should only apply to foreign products and not to Canadian or British products;
Therefore His Excellency the Governor in Council, in virtue of the provisions of section 16, chapter 63, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, enacts as follows:-
That the ordinance of the 22nd June, 1904, respecting the importation into the Yukon Territory of malt and spirituous or intoxicating liquors or other intoxicants and traffic therein, shall be and the same is hereby amended by providing that on and after the 1st day of November, 1908, a tax of fifty cents a gallon be imposed upon all ale, porter, beer or lager beer imported into the Yukon Territory from any foreign country.


Mr. SPROULE.: As that imposes a tax on imported liquors, should not that be done by a custom law rather than by the ordinance passed by the Yukon Council?


Frank Oliver: It is a special tax foi the benefit of the local revenue of the Yukon
Territory over and above the customs tax.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the province of Ontario have a right to impose a tax on imported foreign liquors in addition to the custom tax now levied, and have that ratified here?


Frank Oliver: That is a matter for consideration. The government passed this ordinance in the belief that it was a proper ordinance, and that, being in accordance with the wishes of the Council of the Yukon Territory it was sound public policy to do it. It may be a matter for argument whether it is a correct principle or not, either in law or in policy.


Mr. CONGDON.: I desire to say a word merely in anticipation of what I think the Governor in Council will be asked to do a little later. The Governor in Council was asked by the Commissioner in Council of the Yukon Territory to pass the ordinance imposing a tax upon imported ale and beer; but it is one of the most unpopular* measures in the Yukon, for the reason that it is felt that if men are going to indulge in intoxicating liquors, it is better that they should be permitted to indulge in the lighter liquors, and not compelled to pay increased prices for them, and I have no doubt that the Governor in Council will soon be asked
by the Yukon Council to repeal the ordinance.


Mr. FOSTER.: The point raised by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) seems to be a good point. The province of Ontario certainly has greater rights prima facie than a smaller division of the country like the Yukon Territory. It is an older and larger province and is more settled in its constitutional privileges and usages. Suppose the Ontario government were to introduce legislation or to' pass by order m council a resolution imposing on all imported liquors which came to the border of the province a tax over and above what the Dominion customs tariff imposed upon them, I think it would cause a good deaJ of surprise and a good deal of question. This seems to be entering upon a course which might lead to any kind of customs imposition by any province of the Dominion, which would be absolutely opposed to that uniformity which the trade of the Dominion requires.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is great force in the point raised by my hon. friend from East Grey, not, however, I think, for the reasons given by my hon. friend from North Toronto. The province of Ontario has no power to legislate at all in fiscal matters. The council of the Yukon territory is not a sovereign body, as the legislature of Ontario is within its own sphere; but that sphere does not include fiscal matters. The Yukon Council cannot legislate; it can only make suggestions. It has suggested that a tax should be imposed on certain beverages. The parliament of Canada alone can deal with that, and it may be that we cannot deal with it in the way suggested. I do not know that it can be dealt with in any other manner than by a tax Bill. I think the point is worthy of consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: It depends altogether on the terms of the statute under which the ordinance is made. It is entirely different, I think, in the case of a province. This has been done not by the Yukon council, but by the Governor in Council under the provisions of a statute of Canada. The provisions of that statute are very wide, and I am not at all sure, speaking from memory, that they would not embrace this ordinance. That depends absolutely on the terms of the statute. The question of policy which has been spoken of by the member for the Yukon (Mr. Congdon) is of course an entirely distinct question. As we have not the terms of the statute before us, and as the subject will require some discussion, I would suggest that the Minister of the Interior allow the matter to stand for the present,

and later on we can take it up in com! mittee and discuss it.


Frank Oliver: As to the point raised by my hon. friend from East Grey, there is a special tax levied to-day, and it has been in existence ever since the organization of the Yukon Territory, upon spirituous liquors, I think $2 per gallon, for the benefit of the local revenue.


George Eulas Foster: Is that on the sale of certain liquors?


Frank Oliver: No, on the importation. This proposal is simply to put beer on the same basis as spirituous liquors, except as to the amount of the tax levied. It is a tax levied for local revenue purposes, not by the local council, but by the parliament of Canada. Parliament being the paramount authority, we are asking it to take the action necessary to make the previous action of the Governor in Council effective. I move that the House go into committee on this resolution on Monday next.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George Eulas Foster: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture when he proposes to bring on his Civil Service resolution and the Bill to be founded thereon. I am a little anxious to have the minister say when, because the resolution has stood now for about two months, and it is being very sedulously circulated about the departments, whether by design or not I do not know, that the government do not care to bring it in because if they do Mr. Foster will block it; and I am receiving letters and requests from all sources asking me for heaven's sake not to block the Bill. Well, I never had any idea of blocking it. If any one has been blocking it, it has been the Minister of Agriculture, who for two months has had the way clear for it.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend seems to be very careful of his reputation.


George Eulas Foster: My reputation is all right But there are some methods of political warfare that are not the finest in the world and this is one of them.


Mr. FISHER.: If the hon. member for North Toronto were suffering the pains that I have been, he would have some reason for complaint.


George Eulas Foster: I do not care how many pains you suffer.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The matter stood over also in consequence of some objections th.- 1


Robert Laird Borden: hon. member took to the form of the Bill -in which I concurred; as it requires a schedule of the classifications of the departments. The classifications of the departments have been ready for a long time; but the classifications of the Senate and the House of Commons are not yet ready, and until they are I cannot proceed with the Bill. I am waiting until they are completed.


George Eulas Foster: Now we know where the difficulty is.



GOVERNMENT HARBOURS AND PIERS

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 89) to amend the Government Harbour and Piers Act.-Mr. Brodeur.
On section 1, lease of wharf and breakwaters.
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Some objection was raised to the first part of this section. The section is divided into two parts. The first part provides for the leasing of wharfs to any provincial government, municipal * council, harbour commission, shipping company, railway company or other person. The second part deals with the rentals. From what I have seen of the discussion that took place, I do not know of any objection raised to this part of the measure. But there was objection to the first part. It is objected that no limit of time is fixed for these leases. I intend to meet this objection by an amendment providing that the leases shall be for terms not exceeding three years. It was objected also that there might be an injustice to other companies than the leasing company who desire to use the wharf. I may explain that the intention of the department is not to lease wharfs in cases where several shipping companies use the same wharf. But, where there is only one company mainly interested in the maintenance of the wharf, we provide for the leasing of the wharf to that company. In that way, a great deal of expenditure will be avoided, because lessee will make the necessary repairs. But to meet any objection I intend to pro-pose that no lease shall be given until tenders have been publicly called for. There will be assurance in this that no undue advantage will be taken. Another objection raised was as to possible injustice to private parties using the wharf-that undue charges will be made. I intend to propose an amendment that the lessee shall charge the same rates as are provide for in the general order in council. We have regulations for the management of breakwaters, levees and wharfs provided under orders in council passed in 1889, 1892 and 1908, and the tolls on these
5897	MAY 7, 1909	5898
leased wharfs will be the same as under these general regulations. Fear was expressed also that the lessee would take advantage of private parties by preventing others having access to the wharf. There may be something in that objection, hut I thought it could be met by ordering that the lessee shall not have the right to interfere with the public use of the wharf by any other company. In such cases, the wharfinger will have charge, and will decide how the wharf is to be used. On a previous occasion I explained the general object I have in view. The object is, where a wharf is used by only one company, to lease the wharf and force the company to take charge and make the ordinary repairs, thus relieving the government of a very great expense. For, of course, in many cases, we cannot make these repairs except at heavy cost, while those who lease and use the wharf, might be able to keep the work in good repair at comparatively little expense. In the second section of the Bill, provision is made for the regulation of rates. I mentioned on a former occasion the difficulties we find in collecting these wharfage rates. The charges are very small. On referring to the regulations I find that the charges include, for instance, one cent per barrel for apples, two cents for 100 pounds of bacon, and so on. The wharfinger experiences great difficulty in collecting these rates. But by commuting the rates with the company by a lease under which they would give us a certain amount of money for the use of the wharf, we shall get a revenue while avoiding the heavy aggregate expense of these minor repairs.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The lessee, I presume, would charge the public the same rates that are laid down in the regulations?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes. But the wharfage will be charged in the transportation rates. As it is to-day, the company charges a certain amount for transportation, and the wharfinger is supposed to collect the government fees for wharfage. It can readily be understood that it was very difficult to collect these small sums of five, or ten or fifteen cents, and therefore I think the method proposed under this Bill will be a great advantage.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The wharfinger will be nominated by the government?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Who will pay the wharfinger after you have leased the wharf?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He is generally paid 25 per cent of the revenues of the wharf. We can pay him 25 per cent of the amount agreed upon with the lessee.


George Eulas Foster: I am afraid the policy outlined is liable to great difficulty in the carrying out. The minister is going to avoid giving the lease at too cheap a rate by putting the lease up to competition. But, according to another part of his remarks he will not lease where there is more than one company using the wharf. If there is only one company, there will be only one tenderer and a public call for tenders, while nominally a protection, will be, in reality, of no advantage. I understand that it is not the policy to make any lease or arrangement where more than, one company use the same wharf. But should a lease be granted under such conditions, I can understand that there would be constant cause for grievance. Suppose you have a wharf at which half a dozen companies are doing business; each of these concerns is quite willing to do business with the government, because the government is not a competitor with any of them and all are treated alike under the regulations. But will they find it equally pleasant to do business on a wharf where one company, and that a competitor, holds a lease, and, to a large extent has charge? I do not see that it is going to work out well. The principle of a public wharf is that it should be for the benefit of the public; and if you are going to make an arrangement by which one company or one set of persons have charge of a wharf and its revenues and everything else is to go to them, it is impossible to do that without producing a great deal of trouble and dissatisfaction. The minister urges that he does this because the wharfs can be kept in repair by these shipping companies at a much cheaper rate than the government can do it. That is an admission which the government ought to be in a position to minimize very much. If the government carries out this business on a business method, it ought to be able to repair wharfs nearly as cheaply as a company could. Then again there ought not to be any wharf built by the government that is not a public wharf where the people surrounding it have a right to go and come. You are putting them all under tutelage and supervision, and, to a certain extent, within the power of some one who owns the wharf by lease, or who rents it, and is the boss of it, with only the government wharfinger, who is to be a sort of referee, I suppose. The wharfinger would be a local man getting very little pay, who cannot be expected to be there and settle all grievances as they come un. to be on hand all the time, unless you pay him a pretty good salary. So you really have the company that rents it doing business with the people instead of having the people doing business with the government. I am
5B99

afraid that in the end the minister will find that financially it will not be of much benefit, and that on the ground of trouble in its operation, it will be subject to disadvantages and cause grievances, and I believe in the end will cause a reversal of the policy.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I appreciate that there will be some difficulty in putting this project into execution. But my hon. friend who has been a Minister of Marine and Fisheries himself knows the difficulties of the present situation, he knows how difficult it is to collect wharfage rates on these wharfs. After having given a good deal of consideration to the matter I thought we plight adopt these two plans I am proposing here. Perhaps they will not be successful, but I think they are worth trying, because the situation which exists to-day is an extremely difficult one. When we appoint as wharfinger a man in the locality, and every person who receives goods at that wharf is called upon to pay a small sum of money, 5 cents, 10 cents and so on, the wharfinger finds it almost impossible to carry out his instructions. I may say that in some cases we have not been able to get a wharfinger. In some cases where a wharfinger has resigned, we cannot get anybody to take his place. In some eases they have accepted the position, and after a little experience in collecting those small sums, and after having trouble with almost every one in the locality who uses the wharf, they have become disgusted and have resigned. The result is that to-day we have no wharfinger on some of the wharfs to collect the wharfage rates. Consequently some legislation has become necessary in order to meet the situation. I thought at one time of providing for a commutation of rates, that is, making some agreement with these shipping companies by which we would charge them a certain sum of money for side wharfage and top wharfage. I may say that we have done so already, although it may not have been strictly legal, withj the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company in respect of three wharfs in the lower part of the St. Lawrence. We are now collecting on those three wharfs more than we are collecting in 25 or 30 other wharfs in the neighbourhood of the St. Lawrence, perhaps not quite so much. The result has been very satisfactory. The Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company pays $1,000 for these three wharfs. And we have no trouble with them-they are the only company who uses the wharfs-without any trouble to our officers, without any trouble to the wharfinger there, we receive a check. Out of that check we pay 25 per cent to the wharfinger, and 25 per cent also Mr. FOSTER.
on cargoes that are delivered there for some other companies. The plan works very satisfactorily, and we wish to take power to extend that plan and make similar arrangements with other shipping companies, My hon. friend comments on our decision to call for public tenders. Our intention was at one time to lease the wharfs only in places where there would be one company using them. The reason I ask for public tenders is that I do not wish the public to be taken by surprise, I want the public to know what we intend to do; and this notice will be 'given, not only to the shipping companies, but also to the general public. * This provision is not in the Bill at present, but I intend to move an amendment in the following words:
Substitute for subsection 1 of section 1 the following:-
lb. If the minister deems it desirable to lease to any provincial government, municipal council, harbour commission, shipping company, or railway company, any wharf, pier or breakwater under the control of, the minister, tenders by public advertisement for such lease shall be invited by the minister for a term not exeeding three years, and the Governor in Council may thereupon lease such wharf, pier or breakwater xipon such terms and conditions as are agreed on: provided that nothing in this section shall interfere with the public use of the wharf, pier or breakwater; and, provided further, that the lease of such wharf, pier or breakwater shall not charge wharfage tolls or dues in excess of the tolls and dues established under the authority of this Act by the regulations for the government of breakwaters, piers or wharfs in Canada, as approved from time to time by the Governor in Council.
We think that with the section amended in this way, we shall be able to "get some revenue out of these wharfs which we do not get to-day. It will give us an opportunity also of preventing large expenditures being made in repairs. My hon. friend says that the government should be able to make repairs as well as the shiping company. My hon. friend knows that when repairs of that kind are required we need to send an engineer to visit the works and report and all that causes expense. I admit that the wharfs will have to be inspected, but if the company is obliged to keep the wharf in ordinary repair the inspector will not have to visit so frequently.


George Eulas Foster: Suppose when you lease one of these wharfs there is only one shipping company plying to it, but later on another company enters into business, then the lessee may say that the new company has no privileges there. The individual or company that goes into trade along a river or lake has naturally a right to look to the government wharf as being free to him as to every other person, but if you lease

that wharf it becomes to a certain extent a monopoly to the company in possession. The minister saw that he should omit the word ' person,' because in that case a wharf could be leased to a person who would simply farm out the taxes on every person who used that wharf, but the same principle exists even if you put it the other way. The present position is very bad and it might be made a good deal better if the department would put its foot down and make it understood that it was not doing things by favour, but that those wharfs cost public money and are a public privilege which the public should pay its small share for the enjoyment of.
It that rule were lived up to the people would get used to it and they would not be pulling the coat tails of the member to get the wharfage dues removed or lessened. The existing system has arisen from our bad methods of administration and I do not say it is any worse under the present minister than it was before. Of course we are in a more difficult position now because we have built a great many of these wharfs where they never should have been built and that has multiplied the expense. The minister has, no doubt, thought over the matter more than I have, but it seems to me it is pretty full of difficulties. Unless the minister is sure of his ground and has taken good advice, he might let the Bill stand over for consideration, although if the minister thinks otherwise I do not press that view. Has the minister thought whether or not it is possible to make the carrier pay these dues upon the goods that he sends out from the wharf or brings in to the wharf, so that the department will not be compelled to try and collect dues on 100 or 200 little parcels.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, the second section of the Bill provides for commutation in that respect.


George Eulas Foster: Does it provide that the payment of these dues shall be made by the shinning company, and not by the consignor or consignee?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: That seems reasonable.


Mr. MARSHALL.: I think the wharfage dues are always included in the transportation rate.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, at present the wharfinger has to collect these small fees on each parcel.


Mr. PARDEE.: The member for North Toronto has pointed out that the original lessee of a wharf might obtain a monopoly if others entered into business after he obtained- his lease and wanted accommodation at the wharf. I understand there is a provision in the Bill, or if not there ought to he, that every company should have the
right to use the wharf so that no monopoly may be created. Of course there might he one portion of the wharf more favourable than another for mooring, but every one should have the right to use it under regulations to be fixed by the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Under the present system if I ship a consignment of plums, for example, from one of the harbours on the Georgian bay to Chicago, the shipper pays the wharfage dues, and if a merchant in Meaford receives a consignment of goods he pays the dues for the use of that wharf.
It is the shipper who pays now whether he be a private individual or a company. The danger I see is that under the proposal of the minister he says to the lessee: 'Give me a certain sum as a commutation, and you can ship all the goods over that wharf that you like.' The shipper who enjoys that commutation is in competition with_ other shippers in the same business, and his lease puts him in the same position that the Standard Oil Company occupies in relation to other oil companies, because by having this commuted rate he may send out as large a quantity of goods as he likes over the wharf while every other shipper will have to pay the ordinary rate established by the government. I would suggest to the minister the desirability of providing that there shall be no discrimination in favour of one as against another, as is done in the case of the transportation of goods by railway.


George Eulas Foster: Would not this be perfectly fair? As it is to-day, there is, we will say, a large shipper and a small shipper of apples and there is a stipulated wharf toll on every barrel,


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: One cent per barrel.


George Eulas Foster: The man who is shipping
1,000	barrels pays 1,000 cents, and the man who is shipping 10 barrels pays 10 cents to the wharfinger, and they are on a footing of equality. My proposition was that instead of the man who ships 1,000 barrels and the man who ships the 10 barrels paying the amount they at present pay, that very sum should be collected from the shipping company. Then there would be no discrimination, and the government would look to the company for the payment of the dues.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The difficulty would be to keep track of the quantity shipped. The harbour masters are paid very trifling compensation and they could not be expected to be on the wharf all the time.


George Eulas Foster: Does not each of these shippers make out a weigh bill for the freight in and out?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We would require some one to supervise that. I thought the better way would be to ascertain the quantity of business done by the shipping com-

pany at the wharf and then stipulate a definite sum calculated on the amount of business transacted. That will cause us less trouble and we would certainly get some revenue under it which we do not get now. It has been suggested that these wharfs should be free, but for my part I think we should have some revenue from them. If the provisions in this Bill do not work out satisfactorily we may have to come back for new legislation. At all events it is absolutely impossible to carry out the law as it is at present and it is one of the things which has bothered me since I became minister. Efficient officers have considered this matter, and this legislation is the result of their experience and judgment.


David Marshall: I am not yet clear as to this matter. If I ship canned goods, lake and rail, to Winnipeg and they go by way of Sarnia, who pays the wharfage oh these goods?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The shipper when he does pay it, but that does not often occur.


David Marshall: We export a large quantity of goods, and I have always understood that where goods were shipped, lake and rail, the wharfage charges are included in the freight.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The wharfage rates have always been paid by the individual importer or exporter.


Mr. CROSBY.: As I understand it the government is trying to better control these wharfs and to get some revenue from them. It is said that while the government is going to lease the wharfs they are stil going to retain the wharfinger, and it does not seem to me that that would be necessary. If your wharfinger is not of any use under the present conditions why should you retain him? As to the wharfage rate you could have a top wharfage rate and a side wharfage rate, not controlled by the Governor in Council, but if there is any board of trade in the locality it should be controlled by that board of trade, or by the nearest board of trade to the particular wharf. You could provide that the wharfage should not be more than the maximum for top wharfage and side wharfage. Of course it is absolutely essential that these wharfs should always be for the use of the general public and should not in any possible way be exclusively for the use of the lessee. If the lessee of a wharf, having obtained the privilege should increase his business and should ship a greater quantity of goods over that wharf, so long as he pays the specific rate I do not think that would be any disadvantage to the government or to the locality. Possibly the merchant who is a neighbour of the Mr. BRODEUR.
lessee might be at a disadvantage, but at the end of three years he would have an opportunity of tendering in competition. It might be well to make the lease shorter than three years.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My policy for the present would be to lease only in cases where there is no competition.


Adam Brown Crosby: In any case where competition might be found to be keen the term of the lease 'should be made shorter. Now, as to repairing the wharfs, I cannot understand how you can ask the lessee of a wharf to keep it in repair. Your inspector might visit that wharf and he might report that certain repairs were necessary, but the lessee might not be of that opinion, and difficulty would then arise. I think the only proper way is for the government to let it be understood when tenders are asked for that the wharf would be kept in good condition by them. In some localities in the maritime provinces the teredo worm is harder on wharfs than in other localities, and it would be difficult for the lessee to estimate how much he would have to expend in repairs. Again, if we gave the lease for a long term the wharf might come back on our hands in very bad condition. It seems to me that it would be safer for the government and fairer to the community, that the government should keep the wharfs in proper condition. Then the government would be sure, when their engineer said that certain things were necessary to be done, that they would be done. With regard to the rates, there should be a maximum limit fixed by the government; otherwise the lessee might charge a rate which would be unfair. The rate might be governed by the nearest board of trade in the locality where the wharf is situated. Just as the duty on a suit of clothes is included in the price of the clothes, so the wharfage rates are always included in the freight charges of the railway or the steamship line that uses the wharf. If the government had a wharfinger, it could not have much of a cheek on the lessee; and as the wharfage dues would be payable to the government, I do not think they would be any more likely to be paid than they are now.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I cannot agree with my hon. friend that the services of a wharfinger would not be required where there is a lease. It might be that some people other than the shipping company or the railway company would require to use the wharf, and there should be somebody there to collect the wharfage.


George Eulas Foster: Do I understand the minister to say that after he enters into a contract to lease a wharf to one person,

another person can come and use that wharf without paying anything to the lessee?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He will pay to the wharfinger of the government.


George Eulas Foster: That is, the minister is going to lease the wharf, but is not going to give the privileges of it to the lessee. 1 supposed that the idea was to lease the wharf, provided that everybody who used it should pay a certain maximum rate which the lessee would collect.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is not the intention in all cases. In some cases we might provide that the lessee would have the exclusive use of the wharf and collect all the tolls, in which case we would not require a wharfinger. But I think it is good policy to have someone to look after the property of the government.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, it gives you one more vote.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I had not thought of that.


Adam Brown Crosby: I cannot agree with that idea. That would be selling a privilege to a man who was going to ship over that wharf, it would not be leasing the wharf to him. If you are going to lease a wharf, lease it for so much money, restricting the lessee to a maximum rate and letting him make all he can out of it. You propose to sell to the man who is going to carry goods to and from that wharf the privilege of using it, and you are also going to pay a wharfinger. How much better able will you be to collect the rates under that condition than you are under the present condition? I think it would be better to lease the wharf to one person for a certain specified sum, and let him make all he can out of it, provided he could not charge more than a reasonable rate governed by the nearest board of trade in the locality where the wharf is situated. That seems to me to be the only way in which you can lease a wharf. If you did that, you would have to give to any carrier the same right and privilege that you granted to any other.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: I would like to ask the minister whether it is intended to make a scale of tolls applicable to all government wharfs throughout the Dominion, or whether there will be some free wharfs and some others on which tolls will be exacted?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The policy of the government is to be applied to all the wharfs. I was simply explaining that in some cases it has been impossible, so far, to collect anything, and we expect by this change of policy to collect something.


James Davis Taylor: Then, there will be absolutely no exception ? The reason I mention this is because in the riding of New Westminster during the last five years there have been built, for the first time in the history of our union with Canada, a number of government wharfs. Previous to that time we were under the necessity of contributing our proportion of the cost of building wharfs and maintaining them in other parts of the Dominion, and these were free to the users. No sooner were our wharfs constructed, however, than application was made to municipal councils in the riding to take them over and maintain them. The councils objected to that proposition on the ground that their people were being taxed for the maintenance of wharfs all over Canada. To my mind there is no more objection to the users of those w'harfs helping to pay for their maintenance and support than there is to helping to pay for railways, canals, or other public services, provided that there is no discrimination between one part of the Dominion and another. But in New Westminster district there will be great objection to paying wharfage tolls to lessees, if we are to continue to pay for and keep up other wharfs over which the traffic is free. If a scale of tolls is established, that scale should be uniform all over the Dominion. There should not be one scale of tolls east of the Rocky Mountains and another and higher scale west of the Rocky Mountains, such as the government has sanctioned in the matter of railway rates, on the ground that we have more money and are better able to pay. We do not regard that argument as just or fair; in fact, we have a solemn agreement with the Dominion of Canada that we shall be as well treated as the people of other provinces, and I think we should enter a protest against any proposition that would cause us to pay higher tolls for the use of our wharfs than is 'paid for the use of the government wharfs anywhere else in Canada.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am surprised at the statements the hon. gentleman has made. There is nothing in the law or regulations making a difference between the rates on one side of the Rocky Mountains and those on the other side. The rate3 are the same all over the country. They have always been uniform, and they will be kept uniform.


James Davis Taylor: If the minister will permit me to interrupt him, that is not the statement I made. What I said was that in other matters there had been this discrimination-in the matter of railway tolls, for instance. We would object to pay on any higher scale than applied in other provinces.


Mr. GEO.: TAYLOR I suggest that this Bill might stand over till next year until the minister takes Charge of all the goem-ment wharfs in the country. I understand that some of them are now under the Department of Public Works and that we collect no tolls on them, and some of them are under the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I think the minister should have some official to visit all the wharfs in the country, take stock of them, and bring in a report, and then adopt a comprehensive business plan of dealing with all the wharfs, with a uniform scale of charges.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I want to get this legislation passed in order to have all the wharfs now under the Department of Public Works transferred to my department, and then we shall be in a position to carry out the suggestion of my hon. friend. I am beginning with this legislation, which I think will prove to be somewhat successful. My hopes may not be realized, but as soon as it is passed, the intention of the Minister of Public Works is to transfer to my department all the wharfs which are under the control of his department, and then we will try to put in execution the policy now adopted. But if we have the wharfs transferred without having this legislation, the situation will not be very much improved.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: This legislation will not transfer the wharfs. I think we should have a report from some officer showing what wharfs the country owns. Then -we can form some estimate of what the revenue will be. For instance, who owns the wharf at Hull, and what revenue is derived from it? Is it under the Department of Public Works or under the Marine Department?


George Eulas Foster: It ought to belong to the Department of Militia, according to the definition of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith), because it is one of the frills.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have a list of the wharfs from which we have collected some revenue, and I do not see it mentioned among them. I cannot say whether it has been transferred to my department or not.


George Taylor: That is what we ought to know. Here is a wharf costing $100,000 or more, right under the minister's eyes, and he does not know whether it belongs to his department or to the Department of Public Works, nor does he know what revenue it yields-or, rather, according to him, no revenue is received. I understand that there is a wharf at Canning, N.S. Which department does it belong to, and what is the revenue?


Mr.  J. D.@: 


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not see the Canning wharf among those from which revenue was drawn last year. I suppose it has not been transferred.


George Taylor: That shows the necessity of doing business on business principles. Would any man, owning a lot of wharfs all over the country, go on without an inventory of the property and a statement of what it was bringing in? Before the minister asks for legislation, he should have the wharfs transferred to his department, then have a proper inventory made of the properties, what each cost, what revenue it is yielding and what revenue ought to be got from it. Then he can ask for legislation to authorize him either to lease to a company or to manage the property under uniform charges.


Mr. BRADBURY.: When this matter was before the House on a former occasion, I called attention to the fact that we had a large dock at Selkirk which must have cost a lot of money. I think it is under control of the Public Works Department. But, in effect, it is controlled by one or two lumber companies, and is at times so blocked that it is of no use to anybody else. I ask the minister whether, if this legislation was passed, this wharf would be affected. I presume that it would be, and that it will be managed in a different way from what it is to-day. Though there has been so large an expenditure of public money on this dock, it is used at the present time exclusively, or to a very great extent in the interests of one large company. There are times when, from end to end, it is piled with lumber, and a man cannot walk along it in safety. There is a wharfinger I know, and I understand that he gets $300 a year, but I cannot find anything in the public documents to indicate that hu is paid by the government. I sincerely hope that this block or wharf will be kept clear of an obstruction and that it will be managed! in the interest of the public and not in the interest of any one or two companies.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have no particular information with regard to that wharf. It is probably one of those in which there has been-I admit it-no very rigid administration. The Bill I am now proposing is for the purpose of introducing a more active administration of these properties. I have asked the Minister of Public Works, and he is agreed, that all the wharfs under control of the Public Works Department shall be transferred to the Marine and Fisheries. Then we will proceed to lease them and commute the rates, or, in other cases, collect the wharfage direct, especially where several companies use the same wharf. In the case mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Bradbury), tenders will probably be asked for the ieasing of the wharf. But, if there

are several companies using the wharf, I will not advise that course in such cases.


Mr. LOGGIE.: Is it intended that the carrier should add the wharfage toll to his freight charge? For instance, a carrier takes a barrel of flour from a city and carries it up the river, say, fifty miles. Will the waybill show 25 cents for freight, and one cent or two cents for wharfage, thus using the carrying company as a means of collecting the wharfage instead of leaving it to be collected by the wharfinger? I realize what the minister has said as to the difficulty of getting the wharfinger to attend all the time for the small commission he gets, and I sympathize with the minister in seeking to overcome that difficulty. But, inasmuch as these wharfs are built in the interest of the public at large, there does seem to be a feeling on the part of the public that the use of a wharf by an individual to receive a small parcel from a common carrier should not be the occasion for making a charge. It is well to bear in mind, also, that we have expended a very large amount on the canals of this country, and these canals are free for the public. It seems to me we go a little far in undertaking this means of collecting the wharfage. At any rate, if the common carrier will pay a side wharfage for laying his boat at that wharf, that would be a much more reasonable way to collect revenues from the wharf than if the farmer or small mehchant in a country place has to pay a top wharfage for the delivery of a barrel of apples or a small box of hardware. If the minister will assure us that he will charge the transportation company a nominal but reasonable amount, based, I should say, on their turnover or earnings-say one or two per cent-I think that will be reasonable enough. But this should be taken out of the earnings of the carrier rather than out of the people to whom the freight is deliver ed. I would not like to have it said that we would not let a barrel of flour be delivered without paying tribute of a cent or two to the government. At the same time, I think it quite reasonable that the carrier pay for the privilege of laying his boat beside the wharf and delivering freight to the consignee. But I venture to suggest to the minister not to collect wharfage from the individual who receives freight, in the country districts at any rate. It is a different thing when you come to a city where millions of feet of lumber go over a wharf. It is a reasonable proposition to charge for it there.
But when you come to these outlying wharfs in small places, I think the better way would be to treat the matter as side wharfage. Then there is another reason. Suppose a regular carrier charges a small wharfage, how is the small wharfage to be charged on the man who receives his goods
by a special commerical schooner ? Suppose a schooner lands at a wharf and puts out a box of hardware or a barrel of apples and goes away, who collects that wharfage ? There is no contract made with the carrier in that case. Thus you are discriminating in favour of the man who places his goods on the wharf, not by a regular carrier, but by a special carrier, on a special occasion as it were. You see therefore that the carrier collects wharfage on his contract; you contract with him for the use of the wharf for $25, and you allow him to collect fees from the receiver of the goods who deposits them therej while the other man who gets his goods by schooner and has no lease from the government, gets his goods free-unless you make the corporation or carrier that has the lease, the wharfinger and give him the ri^ht to collect all wharfage. Unless you make him the wharfinger, you are discriminating in favour of those who receive goods per schooner. My idea would be to make the carrier pay the side wharfage and let the public at large receive the goods wharfage free especially in the country disfricts; it may be difficult in large cities. In Camp-bellton, for example, you have a wharf over which millions of feet of lumber pass, with a revenue of several thousand dollars a year. That is another case.


David Marshall: Where goods are shipped by water does not the receiver settle for the freight before he receives his goods?


William Stewart Loggie: Yes, he does.


David Marshall: The wharfage is included, so there would be no hardship.


William Stewart Loggie: There would be a hardship in this way. If you add so much for wharfage, if the corporation or steamboat company, for example, says: Wq have no objection to give $25 for the use of the wharf per year, we use the wharf, but we are not going to charge our customers who receive goods any more than if we did not pay the $25.


David Marshall: Why do we ship by water? Is it not because we get better rates?


William Stewart Loggie: No, it is because we have no other means of communication. I have in mind districts where there is no rail communication, and more than that, where the trade is hardly sufficient to keep up a steamboat service, and in this way you are adding to the burdens on this wharf of those who receive the goods, or of the carrier, as the case may be; unless you make it a naminal figure. If you make a nominal charge for side wharfage, and do not go to the receiver for toll, that is another ques-
A

tion. I think if there is to be a charge, let it be a charge for side wharfage, something that will help keep the wharf in repair.
Mr. PUGSLEY That is the object of the Bill.


William Stewart Loggie: Then it meets with my concurrence. But I do not think it is fair to collect wharfage from the goods that are carried by a regular transportation company, and allow some other company, who has a schooner for example, to land goods free of wharfage. If you cannot collect wharfage now by a wharfinger then it would be impossible to collect it in the case of a schooner landing a small parcel.


Adam Brown Crosby: Would it not be better to lease the wharf with all the rights to one man.


William Stewart Loggie: It is not practicable to do the thing in any other way. But I think there would be this objection: There would be a feeling on the part of the public that some people were getting the use of the wharf free, whereas this company would come [DOT] in and say to their neighbour who happens to get goods by a schooner competing with a steamboat company: 'Well, you must pay wharfage to us.'


Adam Brown Crosby: You would have to pay that wharfage any way. Suppose you leased it to! a company and they put a wharfinger on, they would have to pay him any way.


William Stewart Loggie: My opinion is that you don't need a wharfinger, you don't get enough money out of it to pay a wharfinger. Deal directly with the transportation company and charge them a reasonable annual sum for side wharfage, and let the public have the benefit of receiving goods without wharfagei charge-unless there is suffiicient export business to warrant a charge, as in the case of Oampbellton.


Mr. H. H. McLEAN.: I do not quite understand the provisions of this Bill. Is it the intention of the minister to exact tolls for top wharfage? There are two classes of tolls collected on wharfs, side wharfage and top wharfage. I want to direct the attention of the minister to the position of wharfs in New Brunswick. Wharfs in rivers there have been built partly at the expense of the Dominion government and partly at the expense of the provincial government and the present Minister of Public Works has constructed certain wharfs and paid the whole cost thereof. These wharfs cost anywhere from $2,000 up These wharfs cost anywhere from $2,000 up to $5,000, and in the past wharfage has not been collected. Now you can see the difficulty that would arise. For example, a


William Stewart Loggie: wharf is constructed by the Dominion government in the river St. John, a wharf that has cost from $2,500 to $4,000. How could you exact top wharfage from the farmers when, right alongside, there is a wharf owned half by the Dominion government and half by the provincial government on which no top wharfage is exacted? I think the principle should be laid down that on these small wharfs in the rivers no top wharfage should be charged the farmers, and in that case the Bill would need to be amended so that in making the lease that provision should be inserted. I hope the minister will consider this suggestion, and will not enforce this new tax on the farmers using these small wharfs.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is not the intention
to increase the rates charged before; quite the reverse. I do not know whether they pay them or not, even now.


Hugh Havelock McLean: At present, as I understand, the minister has power to collect top wharfage on government wharfs in the river St. John.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If these wharfs are under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, we have certainly the right to collect top wharfage and side wharfage rates.


Hugh Havelock McLean: I would remind the minister that in the past these top wharfage rates have never been collected. I can point to one wharf owned by the Department of Marine and Fisheries where top wharfage has never been collected from the farmers who have been using it. He can understand also that when wharfs are owned partially by the Dominion and partially by the provincial government tolls are not exacted. If the wharf is built by the Dominion government, costing say the small sum of $1,500 to $2,500-top wharfage should not be exacted from the farmers using these wharfs. Some one has said that the same scale of fees should be charged on all wharfs for top wharfage. That would be manifestly unfair. Here is a wharf in the city of St. John built in a tidal harbour that has cost $50,000 or $60,000; and here is a wharf built in the river St. John that has cost $1,500 or $2,500. Why should the same rate of side wharfage or top wharfage be charged in both cases? I should say it would be unfair to have only one exact scale in force in such cases.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I understand that other gentlemen desire to speak and as the House is going on with other business at three o'clock I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


George Taylor: Next session.
Progress reported.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
The House resumed at 3 o'clock.



SUPPLY-HOURS OF LABOUR FOR WORKING MEN.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply,
Mr. ALPHONSE VERVILLE (Maison-neuve).: quote some remarks of well known gentlemen on their appreciation of a shorter work day. Mr. Chamberlain related an experience of his own firm in his speech in the House of Commons in England on Mr. Le Leakes Mines Eight Hour Bill in March, 1892:
When I was in business, said he, (I am speaking of twenty years ago), my firm was working under great pressure twelve hours a day. Shortly afterwards the Factory Acts were applied to Birmingham, and we reduced the hours to ten a day. Sometime later we voluntarily reduced the hours to 9 a day, after the experiment at Newcastle of a nine-hour day. We were working self-acting machinery. All the workman had to do was to feed the machinery and see the fires were kept in order. In this case if in any, the product should be directly proportioned to the number of hours worked. What is the fact? When we reduced the hours from twelve to ten, a reduction of 17 per oent, the reduction in the production was about 8 per cent, and we again reduced the hours from ten to nine, a reduction of 10 per cent, the reduction of production was 5 per cent.
It will be observed that there was here apparently no speeding of the machinery nor any other change in the arrangements of the work, but that the whole difference is due to the increase in the personal efficiency of the workman under the influence of the shorter hours. It will be observed that the degree in which this personal improvement is effective did not decline with the successive reductions, but is quite as high, or rather a little higher proportionately in the second reduction than in the first. The same results are reported from America. Mr. Pratt, of Pratt & Co., says that in his rolling mill in Buffalo, when the hours were shortened from ten to nine in 1876 on account of bad times he found that the same number of men performed the same amount of work in nine as they did in ten, especially during the short days of winter. If we seek information from experienced men; we know that the shortening of hours has been an incitement to promptness at the hour of beginning work, and as less time is lost consequently production costs less, and the men are in better health. I might cite the experience of large industries as to reduction of hours.
If we take the report of Messrs. Short Bros., in Sutherland, when they established a reduction of hours at the same time as their neighbours, Messrs. Allan & Co., they have precisely the same story to tell. After eight weeks trial, they write Mr. Hadfield, that they are already satisfied the new arrangements of hours will not increase the cost of production, that they have every reason to believe that the production will be greater; that the week before they wrote, their wages bill was high-Mr. VERVILLE.
er than it had been any week during the previous year, showing that the men were working better and more regularly; that they had scarcely one absentee under the new arrangement, whereas under the old system 20 per cent of their men lost the first quarter every morning. Some of those who have given evidence as to the result of a shorter work day have not agreed, and some go as far as to condemn even the good result obtained by others, but should we be guilty of denying to hundreds and thousands of working men the right of reasonable leisure because a few employers will not believe a thing possible which is being done every day.
Have the employers of this country ever granted a restriction of hours willingly? if so they are so few that they are not mentioned in any labour literature that I have seen so far. It has been obtained in most cases from the result of a struggle between employers and employees which we can avoid by legislation.
In the spring of 1894, the English government, showing for once an enterprise above that of private employers, established a restriction of hours, by way of experiment, at the cartridge factory at Woolwich arsenal and although no details of the results of that experiment have been published, it is understood that as much and even more work was done by the men after the reduction of hours than was done before it. At any rate the experiment proved so successful that the late Mr. Campbell-Bannerman to whom the credit is due announced in parliament on the 5th of January in reply to John Burns the intention of the War Department to adopt a shorter work day as a general rule in all the public ordnance factories.
The United States has given us numerous examples of restriction of hours from ten to nine and from nine to eight.
In 1868 shorter hours were introduced by law in the United States, but the superintendents of the -works immediately reduced the men's wages to correspond by paying them at the old rate per hour. This was done in the Springfield Armoury amongst other places. The New York ' Tribune ' quotes the first report of the Commandant of the Armoury as in the effect of the new experiment. He states that file workers managed to make under the old tariff of wages quite as much per day under the short hours as under the long hours system, and that he believed the workmen had worked harder and more faithfully under the short days system than under the long hours. The foreman of the milling department reported on August 17, 1868, that the average earnings of 1,212 pieces of work under the long hours system ' in the month of June previous was $2.60,

whereas in July, under the short hours system, they earned $2.88 per day. In other words, they did considerably more work in short hours than they used to do in long hours.
The following states in the United States have enacted legislation for the restriction of hours in some form:	Arizona, Arkansas, Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Okla-hama, Porto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Nevada, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri Michigan, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming.
Something has been done in this country in respect of shorter hours of labour. This government has established, not only in principle but in practice, a shorter work day in the National Printing Bureau. By an order in council of April 8, 1896, an eight-hour day was established, to take effect on May 1 of the same year.
Now, we might deal to some extent with the question of how this principle came into operation in a country which is often set as an example. The country I have reference to is Australia. Let us see how it was introduced in Victoria. During the gold fever of 1856 a large number of people immigrated to Australia, and from their experience in the mother country they were bound to have legislation passed in that respect, which they did, but not without a large amount of opposition; and the reasons then given were in exactly the same form as they are to-day, although no solid reasons were advanced to prevent it. I will acknowledge that for four years speeches were made and conferences given to if possible educate the masses, not the workers, as they were already in possession of the knowledge of the necessity of such a law. But the other classes of the community, who were looking at such a law as a socialistic measure, and even the promoters, were uneasy as to the result. But after it came in force, in 1885, in Melbourne, its inauguration was celebrated by a large parade, after which a large banquet was given at which Sir Henry Locke, then governor, was invited to speak. He recalled the great act in favour of humanity, saying that the eight-hour day had done more good and had such a good moral effect on the citizens that in the near future Australia would be set as an example in its labour conditions.
We know that the same government legislated in the same direction in 1890, 1896,
1897 and 1898, extending the law over more industries.
Let us look at the result of the reduction in some of Victoria's trades. The iron trades employed in the Australian Steam Ship Company's works, got a restriction of eight hours per day in 1858, on condition of accepting a proportional reduction of wages; but after a year's trial the company found that between the better work they obtained during working hours and the saving of gas, oil or other items of expense, they could afford to pay the men the old rate per hour, and did so. It seems an obvious conclusion that when so many establishments have found the way to make short hours pay in the face of the overwhelming competition of their long-hours neighbours, there can be no essential Tea-son why the rest should not make short hours pay likewise.
Short hours are sometimes pronounced to be a fruit of high wages; the working man, it is said has merely got rich enough now to prefer an hour's ease to an hour's pay. The successful workman of modern times has shortened his day of labour for the same reason, exactly as the successful merchant devotes less time to business after he has made his competency, because it is human nature to become less willing to work hard when there is less necessity for doing so. But it is also true that in some large industries in some of the large cities, in our country, they are now endeavouring to shorten the hours of labour and are willing to lose the difference in wages, as it has become necessary for those working people to have more rest, as they rightly claim, for to better their physical and moral condition.
Artisans, mill hands and others seem generally to prefer greater ease to greater wealth, thus proving that the painfulness of labour varies so rapidly as easily to over balance the gains of utility.
The same rule seems to hold throughout the mercantile employments. The richer a man becomes the less does he devote himself to business, as it is proved every day by numerous examples. A successful merchant is generally willing to give a considerable share of his profits to a partner or to a staff of managers and clerks rather than bear the constant labour of superintendance himself. There is also a general tendency to reduce the hours of labour in mercantile offices due to increased comfort and opulence.
This may be called theory, and it may be said it is not in accordance with the historical facts, but nevertheless it is proved by the history of ancient and modem times that work-neople will prefer more ease to more wealth. But in accordance with the standard of requirements constantly rising, it has been necessary for them to look for

a living wage and consequently they have to work harder in short hours and earn as much money, so as to balance the difference in hours.
It may be said that granting a shorter work day in Canada at this time would mean to paralyze the output of some of our industries. But the worthy persons who are taken in with this fallacy forget the fact, which is the key to a right understanding of this subject, that the general demand for commodities cannot outrun the general production of commodities, because thev are really only the same thing in a different aspect.
It may be said work people are endeavouring to restrict production by shorter hours of labour. It is impossible for any one to believe that such is the case as labour is not looking for a decrease but for an increase in wages, and if that was the case, instead of making more work for the unemployed in proportion to the restriction, thev would have really, in that proportion, made less work for the employed, as the natural effect of restricting production would be to lower wages not to raise them.
I claim that the prosperity of the working classes as well as the prosperity of the world itself lies in the abundance and not in the scarcity of things it produces, provided however that hours of labour be based on such production; so as to equalize both powers.
If production is over and above the consumption, as it is at present, thus increasing the number of unemployed, then the labour must be pressed. We may be asked: 'When will you stop? When you have shorter hours, you will want still shorter houre.' The very same question was asked in 1847 at the introduction of the 10-hours' law, and the answer is the same as then: shortening of hours was necessitated by over-production.
Let us take the principle of government interference.
Principles are always deduction from sequences of facts. The facts of the history of government development lead the philosopher and the man of common sense alike to hold the following beliefs:
The freedom of the individual to pursue his own interest as he will, must be respected. Where conflict of interest arises, 'common good' takes precedence over the desire of the individual.
This is the basis of justice, the teaching of humanity, the ground of patriotism. But let the government here recognize a moral limit and not invade to degrade the manhood of the least number.
Law must be guided by experience. In some the policy of ' laissez faire' must be corrected by such interference as exper-Mr. YERYILLE
ience has taught will result in greater benefit to the community.
And what has experience taught? The Duke of Argyle put the outcome most concisely when he said: 'The two great discoveries of this country are (1) the advantage of freedom in trade and (2) the necessity of restriction of labour.
We are here especially concerned with the second of these discoveries.
Supposed labour to be left unrestrained what would be the natural course of the life in industry.
Competition between producers encourages all possible reduction of cost. This tends to reduce wages, to increase the use of child labour, to perpetuate long hours of labour, &c.
A few unscrupulous employers resorting to such oppressive methods are able to force others to adopt the same policies.
The interests of the employing classes range themselves against those of the operative classes. In the struggle which results from this antagonism, the employer has the advantage of position to force his own terms of contract upon the labourer. He has in his hand an accumulated capital which is equivalent in power to effective organization.
These industrial conditions, left to take their own course, react upon the home and general social surroundings of labour to force down the workers' standard of living. This is an injury which no community can afford to tolerate, and it is a good reason for shortening hours of labour and thus balancing both powers.
The proofs that the work day should be shortened lies also on accidents occurring every day and at what times? We see from statistics furnished by the Jesuits in Germany where the 12-hours' day is set as a maximum, the following table of accidents that happen per hour in all the industries of that country where the working people commence at 6 in the morning and stop at
six at night. 6 to 7			
7 to 8		.... 794	
8 to 9	.... 815	"9 to 10	.... 1069	"10 to 11	.... 1,598	**11 to 12	.... 1.590	**12 to 1	.... *587	"1 to 2	.... 745	2 to 3	.... 1,037	3 to 4	.... 1,243	4 to 5	.... tU78	5 to 6	.... 1,306	
*And some manufacturers stop 11.30. fThat is after a rest for lunch and many are then gone.
These figures prove that long hours of labour tell on the workers to the largest extent.
Then it is easy to see that the hours and

general condition of labour are such as to cause great wear and tear on body or mind or both and to lead to a low standard of living.
While it is proven that, under the short hours system, men work harder while they are at work than they do under the long hours system, it is then true that short hours and hard work impose less strain on the body than the long hours and dawdling, especially if the ten hours are passed in a hot or dusty or poisoned atmosphere such as many trades are obliged to work in. Then the increased exertion during working hours has always been balanced and more than balanced by the restorative effects of a longer period of repose or recreation in good air. While the men do as good a day's work as they did before, they improve in health and vigour, and such is corroborated by managers and over-lookers of some large institutions. There is more happiness in common, and in most cases the change is cited as an example which brought the change in conditions of modern times.
We must consider that human labour is not a marketable commodity like a bale of cotton or a ton of pig iron, though it is often treated as such. Fortunately on all sides we are rapidly awakening to a recognition of this fact. Far too many masters in all departments of trade and commerce fail to give sufficient thought to this most important subject.
They seem to forget that their employees are not mere machines but sentient human beings, with hopes and fears, aspirations and all the attributes which are common to mankind.
When a man is put at a machine, he should not be regarded by his employers as a part of it, but the human nature and the aspirations of a man should still be recognized. It i3 rightly claimed that the shortening of hours would lead to improvements, mental and physical. Any reform by which such change or improvement is effected, relating to some millions of human beings in this country alone, is not to be lightly put on one side or trifled with. If effected and if even a partial accomplishment of the end in view can be attained, the raising of such a considerable portion of the community must be of the highest benefit to the nation as a whole. If one rich man spends $1,000 dollars in luxuries, the purchase of these probably does not assist the trades that confer most benefits, but on the other hand, if we have 1,000 workers, each spending $1 it is more than probable that the turnover of the latter would stimulate trade of a nature that is most lasting and certain, and by so doing the community at large would derive large benefits from it. Objections of all sorts 188
have been made and are still made against short hours, and one of them is if you give more time to men you will give them more time to spend their money. What are the reasons for such objections? I hope^we are not willing to regard ourselves as inferior to other nations. Then where are the figures, where are the statistics, to prove that if you give more ease to a man he will ill-use it? It is known that our working classes have intelligence enough, instead of spending their money in the manner stated, to be temperate and-many are teetotallers-and so to make conditions better, as regards themselves, their wives, families and homes.
Let us look ten years back and compare the conditions then and to-day. Are the army of workers in a less fit position to exercise their right to-day than they were then? The worker is now in a better position, he earns more money and works shorter hours. He can buy the commodities of life. He can live in a better ventilated house and in better surroundings. He can have more pure air, he can cultivate his mind, he can teach his family that rightful ambition is not forbidden but.is permitted by the natural course of events. He can build his own home and have more comfort and become an honoured citizen. But it may be said:
' As long as the working men have attained all these things, we do not see any reasons to bring this question for discussion here in the House for they have attained all this by natural means.' But this has been the fruit of short hours and better wages, and the large masses who are looking for, and hoping to receive the same treatment as their fellow-workers are demanding a restriction of hours. Any one who has travelled over Canada and who has taken the trouble to observe conditions, has really seen that shorter hours are inevitable sooner or later; it has to come through the constant pressure from those directly interested by their labour and those directly interested by their profits.
The same people are demanding shorter hours demanded a Department of Labour, a fair-wage schedule, abolition of the sweating system, abolition of child labour, better protection in manufacture, better sanitary conditions, technical education, investigation of labour trouble, and so many other things-the same people that are accused constantly of working against the prosperity of the country.
It is proved also that shorter hours will give more time to men to make plans for their own improvement. If they had more leisure they in this country would do the same as in other countries-the time would he well spent. We would see more people in libraries and reading rooms.
If we are justified in expecting the gift



of leisure to spread an active desire for mental improvement, we are even better justified in expecting this spread of mental improvement to result in many substantial gains in industrial efficiency. We have seen employers remarking a certain quickening of intelligence in their men immediately after the shortening of hours. The _ faculties which seem to have been torpid and wandering under the long hours concentrated themselves with more purpose and interest in their work and produced better results.
Why should workers work less hours? Because the man is looked upon as a machine and under the present condition he is nothing else from the employers' standpoint. You will start a machine at 7 a.m., stop for an hour for oiling and cleaning, and work until 6 p.m. But the human machine is duly responsible to his family, he has to meet his obligation, he has to school his children, clothe and nourish them, pay his rent out of the petty earnings sometimes received for such a work. In his old age not much more is done for him than for the material machine. The piece of old iron may be re-cast and something done with it, but the man generally is thrown in the scrap-pile of society. As a machine he has been of great use and profit to his employer but, notwithstanding all that, the steel is worn out and he is dealt with as an old tool. During his life of labour he may have worked ten hours or more a day. If he is in a destitute position the fault may lie in the lack of education, but what time did he have to educate himself; what time did he have to educate his family? It may be said that he should have had done it in evenings. But when fourteen hours of a man's day are taken by his work is it reasonable toi believe that such can be done? The strain on his body is sometimes nothing to the strain on his brain. He never knows whether he will work to-morrow, he never knows whether he will live very long under the same roof with his family as he may be compelled to seek employment elsewhere. It may be that one of his family is on a sick bed, crying for better provision than usual. It may be that he is under the grinding of many more causes of daily worry. Still his energy is all taken up by his work. Then, is it possible for a human being to last any length of time under such conditions? These are to-day's reasons which will be repeated to-morrow and with some addition, and so on until such a time as the machine is partially or completely worn out. If a part of the human machine breaks or is out of order, does the employer contribute to repair the weak or broken part? No, but he will do it for his material machine as it represents a certain capital and to replace it a certain amount


Alphonse Verville: of money must be spent. But he the human can be replaced an hour after the breakage without any cost to the employer, which is most generally done, and still we say, why should we shorten the hours of labour? Because of the present long-hour day many are unemployed and the man on the street fixes the wages paid to the man at work. Labour-saving machinery has increased the producing capacity of the workman who, in justice, should be afforded leisure. Shorter hours would give greater opportunity for social and educational development.
It would Taise the standard of living, upon which prosperity depends.
It would help the tax-payers by putting the tramp to work.
It would promote spirit which is lacking in over-worked people.
It would give men a chance to get acquainted with their families.
It would promote temperance by removing the desire for stimulants which come from long hours of labour.
It would make better citizens by giving the citizen more time to understand his duties.
Another reason, and of the highest importance in respect of restriction of hours of labour, is the woman and child labour.
It is not my intention to dwell at any length on that subject at this time. I hope it will be treated in a masterly way by some of the hon. memlbers in this House. However, I am in duty bound to say a few words so as to permit other members to put before the House the necessity of restriction of hours, especially on that line. Have we ever stopped to consider that the child who works in the industries is to be the man or woman of to-morrow? Have we ever considered that they are to build the future generation? Have we ever considered that on them lies the responsibility of the growing of a strong nation? Have we ever asked ourselves whether we have acted in a spirit of progress in favour of our future generation?
Where is the hon. member of this House, either in his quality of member of this council of the nation or as citizen, who can say that he has done all he can to alleviate the sorrows and misery of thousands of women and children who are constantly wearing their life away in industry?
I am sorry to say that so few of our men in the economic world are giving enough time to even think of the condition of such a life.
Alongside of what we may call individual duty there is also a social duty, and I hope that in the near future we will have the government dealing on all such social questions and that a certain percentage of the members of this House will devote a few hours weekly to study this great question, which is the question of the day.


Mr. G. A. TURCOTTE (Nicolet).: In rising to speak on this question, I do not intend to detain the House at any great length, but simply to add a few observations to the elaborate and brilliant speech of my hon. friend (Mr. Verville). The speech which has been delivered by the labour member in this House is of such ability as to fully demonstrate what education may perform in the working portion, or labour classes of the community, and to what a high grade of development that class may attain in favourable circumstances. I sincerely congratulate the hon. member for the remarkable way with which he has treated the subject interesting us presently.
I am happy and proud in addresing the House to-day, that it should be on a question of such importance and that I should be called to support the eight hours' movement, a labour problem which is stirring all socially to improve the welfare of thousands of people, the labourers, who are the fulcrum of democracy. I have drawn, in my youth, from the source of paternal education, the knowledge and love of sound democracy, and I am happy, I again say, to do perhaps something in its favour. The eight hours' movement directly results from the growing prosperity and intelligence of manual workers throughout the civilized world; it is no new fad of a.few agitators, it is rather a recurrence to a state of things which prevailed in early ages and as far back as the 13th and 14th centuries. England, more advanced in her industrial development, has done a great deal to meet the new problems of modern times, and presently the eight hours' movement is agitating alike England, the western part of the continent of Europe, and the United States. The whole current of thought that led to the great French Revolution was one of hatred and bitter hostility to the tyranny of the past. Everywhere men saw the possibility of a new and wider field opening before them; everybody had in his heart that profound hope which awakes courage and burned with, eagerness to break the inherited chains of despotism. This great social commotion was morally felt through the whole world, and its consequence was that more freedom and large concessions were bestowed on humanity in general and on the labouring classes in particular. From that day democracy felt in its bosom a sense of vigour, and the great voice of the people was heard over all others, claiming redress for long standing evils and asking for more protection and welfare.
England has done a great deal in favour of workmen, and a complete, minute and voluminous code for the protection of labour now exists in that country.
The eight hours' labour question, Mr. 188}
Speaker, has been dealt with from a statistical and economical standpoint, and I wiii only say a few words in this direction, my intention being to view the theory of shorter hours in another aspect, just as important, in my way of thinking, that of upholding or raising the workmen by way of education and by giving them a larger share of rest, comfort and liberty.
The question before the House is an economic experiment in this country, as it demands only that this reform be applied to the government's servants, and I am of opinion that the Liberal party would give an instance of great interest in the labour ing classes in adopting it, and would raise a general cry of satisfaction among thousands forming the grand army of toilers. But of course there is another side to the present debate, a counterpoise, and this brings the question to its real point. The action of the government in favour of shorter hours would, there is no doubt, widely open the door to a demand for legislation in favour of generalizing the system, and then would appear the formidable forces of manufacturers and industrials. Capital and labour would be then in presence and would fight a great battle.
The hon. member from Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) has proved satisfactorily that capital had nothing to lose by the reduction of labour hours. Numerous experiments have shown that production did not diminish at all, nor cost of production increase; that prices had in no case been affected, or the volume of trade reduced by the adoption of shorter hours of labour. In some cases a reduction of profits had taken place, but this must be attributed to the fact that business rivals were left free to work longer hours. In no case does the adoption of the eight-hour day appear to have been followed by any economic disaster
The fact is asserted by the highest authorities in economy, that successive reductions of the hours of labour, which this country has witnessed, have been attended, after a very short interval, by a positive general increase in individual productivity, and in many cases it has been found that the workers did more in ten hours than their predecessors in twelve. The possibility of maintaining the total amount of the product, notwithstanding a reduction of working hours, may seem most incredible to many, but it is nevertheless proved by too much evidence to allow of doubt. In the face of experience and probant testimony from all parts of the world, it seems no longer possible to infer, on purely theoretic grounds, that the product must necessarily be diminished hy a further shortening of the working day. Mr. John Ray, an eminent writer, who is very

frequently quoted in questions of this kind, has put forth the probable consequences of reduction of hours in a very exhaustive article in the 'Contemporary Keview' of October, 1891, in which he points out that the present very long day in many trades and occupations is a product mainly of this century, the fruit of the factory system which the industrial revolution brought in its train.
For the last sixty years, he says, we have been slowly learning the lessons that the prolongation of working hours, which was nearly eating the heart out of the labouring manhood of England, was, from the standpoint of the manufacturer's own interest, a grave pecuniary mistake.
He then goes on to give copious evidence from actual experiments, that a workman can do as good work in eight hours as in nine or ten or more; and he argues that the sources from which the compensating progress in the labourer's personal efficiency had proceeded in previous experience and are still far from being exhausted. Among the sources which he mentions are the increased energy, contentment, and intelligence of the workman, "the saving of time lost through sickness, unpunetuality and the breaks for meal times.
One may ask, Sir, how it is that shortening the hours of labour does not affect productivity. It is because shorter hours tell on the vital and mental energies of the workmen, who soon discover the secret of making up for the diminution of work hours by improved arrangements of the work.
The main point in connection with any proposed further reduction of the hours of labour is the question of the probable effect of the change in the personal efficiency of the workpeople. If productivity was to be lessened by short hours, profits and wages would also be lessened; and good wages are quite as necessary to the improvement of the working class as more leisure. But then shorter hours may not in reality mean shorter product, for they may so better the quality of labour that as much is done afterwards in the short day as was done before in the long one. A French manufacturer once said to M. Guizot, one of France's most renowned historians and statesmen: 'We used to say it was the last hour of labour that gave us our profit, but we have now learned it was the last hour that ate up our profits.' This admission, it seems to me, is most significant and most conclusive.
The majority of writers on this economical subject agree that the eight hour movement ought to obtain a legal recognition of the general social^ interest in every labour contract, and it is generally admitted that no other power but parliament can secure an effective reduction.
It seems to me that the questions now Mr. G. A. TUECOTTE.
under consideration, if it comes to a favourable conclusion, would be, on the part of this Liberal government, a generous as well as an inviting effort towards securing a general settlement of this most interesting and important subject; and is it not the duty of the state to set an example in this present occasion?
It is not in the scope of my remarks to go further in the direction of giving an economical demonstration of the eight hour system, but if we admit, as the available evidence and sound reasoning in political economy make it most reasonable to believe, that the eight hour day of labour has no blight to cast on the economic prosperity of the working class or of the nation at large, while it will be certain to contribute greatly to the moral and social elevation of both, then it is the task of those who stand at the head of the people as leaders, to see that the great class of toilers be protected, either by means of concessions from employers, or through the trade union agency, or by means of legislation..
We must bear in mind that human society is a moral body which has a heart as well as the individual; so says Victor Cousin. Generosity, goodness and fairness, consequently are expected to be found in every political organism.
I will now, Sir, attempt to view in a few words the question oi shorter hours of labour from another aspect; that of building up the welfare of the manual labouring class by giving it time and leisure to benefit from education, making each man, as much as possible, a better, if not a competent judge of the great questions that parliament has to decide. Every man in the country is virtually called to share in the work of government. But are the men thus called upon to rule capable of understanding the task set before them? All wellthinking and experienced public men will unanimiusly answer that a very large number of our labouring fellow citizens are not, under present industrial conditions, capable of forming a fair, conscientious and accurate opinion on the point at issue. And where is the remedy to the evil, if not in the raising of the intellectual capacity of the electorate! An eight hours day will give more daily leisure to the bulk of voters and thousands of working men will have the opportunity of becoming competent for their duties of citizenship.
Let us not forget that the ruing power lies in the greater number who thus become the real masters of the country when the ballot day arrives, and it is necessary to educate such masters by giving them all possible opportunities of thinking of and learning the important liabilities incumbent on their supreme prerogatives. The workingmen are not mere machines to be used, I could *ay illused, till they are completely

ruined and then cast away, no, they are human beings with hopes dear to them and fears, legitimate aspirations, sentiments, and all are the attributes which are common to mankind.
In this country, Sir, when human energy has come to be of such a whirling activity, when aspirations towards wealth, comfort and enjoyment have become, in individuals as well as in all classes of society, a passionate flight carrying away humanity to a more perfect state of things, it must be remembered that one of the most promising expectations regarding the future conditions of the human race is the true improvement of man.
Now the toilers being the largest portion of the community must be looked after in the direction of giving them certain hours of liberty that they will be induced, in the course of time, to devote to instruction. In so acting they will raise their moral, intellectual and physical standing. In their leisure hours, they will also be able to indulge in a more intimate intercourse with the higher and more refined classes of society, and they will derive from it great benefits for themselves, as well as for the community at large. This may appear to be a Utopia to those who have no faith and no hopes in this democratic doctrine, but I am not of that number, and I sincerely believe that, sooner or later, the ideas that I now advocate will be a great factor in the building up of the national advancement of all civilized countries. 1 do not think to stray when I submit that the future progress of the world rests mainly on the more or less good will of legislators to incite education in the lower classes. Let the toiler know the great lessons of hygiene, let us teach him the duties of a leader in his family, let us impress on hi? mind the knowledge proper to a citizen and let us urge him to make it a point to perform faithfully and scrupulously what is to be expected from a member of the sovereign. To arrive at this, Sir, it is of absolute necessity that a new horizon be opened before the working classes, that hours of rest and liberty be granted to them during which they will be in a position to consider and to understand that their energies must not be directed only in the way of becoming more skillful workmen, but that it also belongs to them to become useful and able citizens and men in the widest acception of the word. The free hours given to the working man will awaken in him new faculties and this will be all to the advantage of the social body. And when the day comes during which thousands of workmen stand before the ballot box to cast their vote, the country will have the guarantee that the judgment rendered by this great portion of the community is one given by men able to discriminate with a sound mind and a cultivated intellect the great political questions debated before them. In a country like ours, having a political organization coun-teidrawn on the English constitution, the most admirable of all constitutions in the world, I venture to say that it is of very great importance that the people be induced to self-government either in the individual sphere, or in the domain of the family or that of the work shop, or in the intercourse between citizens. Every man ought then to be guided by principles involving regard for the dignity of man, this meaning to do nothing against the liberty of the citizen and to love his country.
These are, Sir, sound democratic principles that the boy should learn at school, for their knowledge will become more and more necessary as time goes by, witnessing the great economical evolution of society as a whole.
Generalizing the right of vote as it is done to-day, and extending it more and more to the masses, is assuredly handing the power to the pebple at large and what will be the consequence of thig when difficult political problems are left to fee discussed, weighed and decided without appeal by a majority of electors ignorant and having no idea of what is put before them.
The duties of an elector have to be learned and it is absolutely necessary that the man who votes should know what he has to do, so that his action be of some advantage to him and to his country. Ignorant, we believe everything and any party can lay hold of us and make us blind partisans; educated, a man considers and thinks before depositing his ballot in the ballot box, he knows what he is doing, and consequently acts as a true citizen.
Any attempt to better the condition of the labouring classes which does not ultimately raise their standard of comfort and enlarge their intellectual capacity, will be useless, and any cause which stands to lower it, should, if possible, be removed.
Our constitution confers to the people the great and sublime mission of ruling by suffrage, and it is of vital importance that this people, in the hands of whom the destiny of the country is entrusted should be qualified by education to perform this sovereign duty. It should be the effort of every nation to secure, as far as possible, good and contented citizens; and forces which contribute to this in any way should not be disregarded. The nation feels a direct interest in securing the advancement of the health and education, and the morality and well-being of the whole community. The improvement of the labouring classes has now become a matter of fundamental interest to every nation, as regards its supremacy as a nation. It will be to the nation which builds up, by a wise policy in

this direction, an honest, sturdy, self-reliant and intelligent class of labourers, that the prize of industrial supremacy will come. In just so much as each individual labourer creates wealth more than he consumes, does he increase the wealth and prosperity of his country. Civilization and progress today, more than ever, rest on the integrity and welfare of the family. Home comforts and home life must be given to the workers so as to render indissoluble the ties of family formed by the intimate and unremitting intercourse of the father with the children. Family is the most admirable of all government, and it is in its bosom that children, the citizens of to-morrow, must learn the lessons of wisdom and experience, and well understand that the prosperity of society is based on that of the family. The father is the natural teacher at home, and it is to better fulfil his duty as such that he claims a few hours of rest and liberty. Let us have the ' eight hours labour ' reform as advocated in this House to-day, and sooner or later it will come to have such a beneficial effect on public opinion, it is my firm belief, as to impress on our legislative ^powers the conviction that it is of sound politics to have all toilers of this country benefit by it. Such liberal legislation would secure for millions of tired workers an hour or two of leisure otherwise spent in toil; it would enable many, who would otherwise have plodded the daily round of monotonous labour, to obtain access to some share in that larger life from which they are now relentlessly excluded; it would protect the future generations of the race from physical degeneration or mental decay; it would make brighter the lives of those who have toiled, and then a large class amongst us might have education, and holidays, and culture.
In concluding, I claim for the hard working class, standing as a very essential part of our social organism, its share of a beneficial and philanthropic legislation. I am advocating the cause of those who labour, toil and moil and suffer day after day, and ask for them their legitimate, although small, portion of what is enjoyed largely by those more fortunate. Let us bear in mind, I would humbly submit, that it is the duty of those now in power, not only to legislate on actual questions interesting presently the community, but, that it is also of vital importance to all, that legislative action be taken to prepare the future welfare of the people at large, and the question now under consideration is such as to be the foundation stone in the future building of more favourable, larger spirited and democratic legislation. To us it belongs to prepare the future; it will be what we will have made it ourselves.
When we first meet with the labourer in history, he is a mere serf, but this condition did not last and was doomed, by its very Mr. G. A. TUKCOTTE.
nature, to vanish. After centuries of everlasting efforts and of hard struggle, the labourer was delivered from the stigma of legal inferiority and won freedom. But, I am sorry to say that the workmen of the twentieth century are still slaves; in some respects they are not under lash of unmerciful masters, it is true, but there are serfs through the exigencies of the present conditions of labour, in many cases. Thousands of children of our working fellow citizens, in most of pur large cities, have never yet seen their father by daylight. To the eyes of those little ones, the father is no better than serf, having no time to devote to home functions and paternal duties. Are we justified in calling right this condition of industrial life? Let us bear in mind that the social body has no better guarantee of its future improvement than the proper intellectual and moral training of children in the family bosom.
Improve the educational standard in the people and we will have better citizens, capable of judging the merits of their claims and their duties. In the spread of education, evils of all kinds are, if not annulled, considerably reduced. Let brain come to the front and we will find men well informed of the laws regulating social and industrial conditions; violence and disorder will disappear, we will see the ultimate adjustment of many industrial difficulties and come to the solution of most of the labour problems. Capital and labour will arrive mutually to better understanding and the great commotions that shake the social structure now and then in its very foundations, will be avoided.
Pasteur, the immortal Pasteur, one of the most surprising geniuses that humanity has ever produced, whose intellect seems to have been more directly enlightened by a divine ray of wisdom and knowledge, be it said to the glory of France, Pasteur's contention is that peace and science will triumph over war and ignorance; that all nations will unite and act in concert not to destroy and to ruin, but to build and to improve, and that time to come will belong to those who will help in raising the labouring classes by way of giving them educational advantages, and to those who will alleviate the sufferings of mankind. Labour has the undeniable right to be treated at least as well as any other source of power. Let us then set an example and give the first impulse in the direction of shortening the hours of labour so as to offer to the working people facilities for attaining to intellectual enlightenment.
This step towards real progress is undoubtedly a part of the Divine economy by which a new factor would be added to the evolution of humanity towards its industrial as well as intellectual development.

Little has been done up to the present, time, in favour of the lower classes, compared with the considerable and important legislation passed by parliament in the way of endowing capital and the higher classes of the community. However I must say that the Liberal party has done a great deal more in that direction than our friends of the opposition when in power, and I am particularly pleased in availing myself of this opportunity of congratulating the Hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Lemieux) for having erected on a broad basis of justice, a tribunal where industrial conflicts can be settled and where labour and capital can meet and come to terms.
I fully understand that the eight hour agitation may be rather premature, and may be a source of difficulties to the government, its present bearings on production and wages being matters of serious study and discussion. But the economic current which it indicates is a sure guarantee of its coming sooner or later to a favourable issue, and Liberalism, I venture to say, would inspire a strong feeling of admiration and attachment to those who have partly in their hands the destiny of Canada, if shorter hours of labour were granted.


Mr. GIRARD (Chicoutimi and Saguenay).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the question brought up by my hon. friend from Maison-neuve (Mr. Verville) is indeed one of the most important which this House can have to deal with, since every country in the world is up against that labour question which at times shakes society to its very foundations.
My hon. friend is a mechanic by trade, and as president of the labour congress, and a member of this House, from a constituency wherein the labour vote has a controlling influence, he may justly claim to be the representative of the Canadian labour element. His experience is great, his information large, and his opinion consequently must carry great weight with his hearers who have not so thoroughly gone into the study of the question. Accordingly, I am sure the government have listened to his remarks with becoming respect. However, I understand he is particularly anxious to have his views discussed; for thereby will there be greater light thrown on the subject and will the class of men whose interests he champions obtain a greater measure of assistance and justice. I listened with great attention to the speech so well prepared which he has just delivered. My 'turn of mind and my requirements put me in sympathy with his views, and I am ready as he is to make the sacrifice of my interests for the sake of improving the condition of the working classes of this country. I deplore myself, as he does, and as they do, the errors and unfairness of capalists; I hate, as he does, and as they do, the idea of being another man's slave, the servant of a fellow man endeavouring to get out of me as much as he can; I deplore, as he does, and as they do, the state of things whereby I am doomed to be a pauper during my life time, while next to me extravagance is making a foolish display of luxury, oftentimes the result of graft, of lawlessness, even of crime, all things which from time to time cause a feeling of revolt, a desire of asserting one's rights, with, as a final result, in the near future possibly, a world-wide disaster.
Society is by degrees getting out of kelter, and it does not seem as though the Creator in his impenetrable wisdom had wished that there should exist such a wide gulf between the various classes of men as is found to-day between an oppressive millionaire and a miserable pauper, his victim. Therefore an effort should be made to restore society to its normal state without, of course, doing away with that diversity of conditions, inseparable from the social life of human beings associated for a common object, dealing fairly between themselves, helping one another as brothers and fellow workers should do, and seeing to it that every one gets his share of the good things of the world as remuneration for his quota of intelligence, energy and labour. Such is the aim of the member for Maisonneuve, and I say it is sublime and patriotic. One way of dealing fairly with the working men, he says, would be to shorten the hours of work. In support of that contention he supplied well prepared data, and suggested that the principle might be applied to begin with in connection with public works paid out of the public chest, that is in part out of the pocket of the working-man himself.
Mr. Speaker, I am myself a working-man. I worked by the day, ten hours a day, at a salary of 80 cents a day, and I worked as a farmer on my farm. I worked also in factories. Many factories have I visited and I know farm work as a practical farmer must know it. I am also acquainted with lumbering and the work of the shantyman; I have been at various periods of my life employer as well as employee. My father was a working-man himself, a farmer all his life. My connections and my experiences are those of working-men, and I have the honour to represent here a community made up for the most part of farmers, intermixed with quite a number of shantymen and mill men, the majority of whom are in close sympathy with me and I with them, as in honour bound.
In the course of the last twenty years I spent in public life, I have often heard .that great labour problem^ dealt with by various persons, in all stations and classes of society. Quietly, and for my own per-

sonal satisfaction, I studied that problem and I consider it my duty, Mr. Speaker, to state my views on the matter at this critical period of our political history. If it be intolerable for the workingman to remain the dumb servant of capita], it is to my mind just as intolerable that honestly earned capital should be made the slave of its servant. If it be unfair that the workingman should be deprived of what is righteously coming to him, it is equally unfair that capital should be compelled by a man or a body of men to pay for that labour an exorbitant price. There is, then, or there should be a neutral ground where both parties can meet as friends. Would the granting of the eight hours' day solve the difficulty P I do not believe it f I am even inclined to think that it would make things worse.
Manual labour is not exhausting; it is a necessity of our condition, and we should accept it submissively. Please bear in mind that farmers work from ten to fifteen hours a day; and in support of my previous statement, I may add that farmers on an average live longer than any other class of society. So I say that a long day's work is not a factor of physical degeneracy. Besides, to my mind it is-entirely misleading to say, whatever statistics you may have in support, that a man, or machinery, can accomplish more in eight hours' than in ten hours' time. The result would be an increase in the cost of production, and necessarily an increase in the price of commodities of all kinds.
Now, if there are in the world products whose selling price varies greatly and fluctuates in sympathy with market quotations, there are others whose value varies little, as a rule. I mean farm products. Were we to create a condition of things, whereby the cost of production of these farm products may be possibly largely increased, while on the other hand, market quotations remain unaltered, very soon we would be face to face with a serious crisis t'houghout the world. For the farming population represent the majority of the country, represent the most important and the most useful of industries, and if we compel farmers to restrict their efforts to supplying their own wants, what will become of the country? It is an utter impossibility for the farmer to get as much work, not to speak of more work, from a man working a smaller number of hours; accordingly, the cost of production will increase too rapidly and his business will be imperilled.
It is contended that the eight-hour rule will not be applicable to farming, that it will be applied only as regards public works. But once the door is opened, where shall we stop? Why should not the same1 privilege be claimed in other quarters? To my mind, this proposal is a dangerous one, Mr. GIRAKD
and should be considered with a cool head and great caution by all working-men as well as public men.
Of course, there are exceptions to all rules; certain kinds of work cannot by common consent, be performed for ten or eight hours in seccession. Such eases are known, recognized, and nobody thinks of applying to them another rule. The child who is not fully developed should, when called upon to work for a living, or as a help to his family, be protected against protracted exertion which might break down his constitution. So also, the young woman should be protected against excessive labour until she has acquired her full developement. All are agreed as to that. But, as regards a fully developed man or woman, why should they not be let free to use their own judgment in the matter and exert themselvs to the full limit of their power? Instead of endeavouring to have a general shortening of the day's work, why not lay down as a rule that, the work being paid so much an hour, whoever is anxious to work longer hours will be free to do so. A strong and healthy man will work longer hours; he will earn more money, there will be greater inducement for him to exert himself, his family will be benefited thereby, and everything will go on more smoothly. Farmers work ten or fifteen hours a day and live older than others who work less.
The labouring man, in the workshop, or elsewhere, like the sturdy farmer, led onward by his strong common sense and his fondness of comfort, will work longer hours without impairing his health and with profit for his. future. Then, the price of labour being established at its real value per hour, the capital, whether agricultural or manufacturing, will have its share of justice and the equilibrium will be thoroughly established in the cost of living. No more strikes, with their financial disasters and their accompanying scenes of more or less sinister nature; no more of those continuous recriminations which too often bring trade to a standstill and indirectly paralyze business?
Supposing the value of this idea to be acknowledged, who shall determine the price of labour?
Why, simply a labour commission, composed of able men taken from all classes of the community, where the workmen will be represented. This commission, holding permanent session, each year, revising its schedules of the value of labour, which would be accepted by all interested parties, would govern labour, untrammelled by political control, and would deal fairly with all classes of the community.
Mr. Speaker, such is, to my mind, the only way to give justice to the working-

man-to leave him just what he is; a servant-hut at the same time to ensure his freedom by leaving him sole master of the employment of his time. Now, let us enact laws to make work as agreeable as possible; let the workshop be built according to the most up-to-date plans from a sanitary point of view; built so as to afford protection against accidents; let us compel corporations to pay wages regularly to working men from one to four times a month, so as to avoid-that which unfortunately happens too often-the withholding for months of salaries which are already too small, with the object of declaring dividends; let the workmen's salary be by law thoroughly secured by first mortgage, as a first lien, day after day, upon the product of their labour; whether movable or immovable property; without the present formalities which now cause heavy losses of the hard-earned salaries of honest workmen and fathers of families; let all the highway robbers who are selling on the streets, in the newspapers or otherwise, by means of false prospectus, bogus values or watered stocks, be unmercifully jailed; let an honest maTgin of profit be secured to manufacturing capital, and then let the workman be admitted to divide with his. employer; let an income tax be levied; let corporations and individuals be compelled to give annually to auditors appointed by the government, free access to their books, and let these auditors, after giving the employers their legal profits, apportion the workman's share and that of the people, and from that moment the war against capital, which is so intense and so spiteful to-day, will be brought to an end and the different classes of the community will deal with each other in a friendly spirit.
The great fortunes, the suddenness of which cause such rancour in the country, all necessarily come from the same source: the public funds. The indebtedness of the country figures up to hundreds of millions of dollars, and will soon be greatly increased. Take away from the circulation the whole amount, even if you lay aside the disbursement of the annual revenues, and where would our millionaires be? Since wealth is based on public money, it is therefore absolutely fair that the government and the community should have an adequate share of its profits which only exist through a concurrence of energy and good will which they themselves have directed, in which case the poor would be less poor, the rich would be as well off probably, and the community at large would be more evenly balanced.
I,	therefore, most respectfully submit to the premier and this House that the best means to bring about a practical and fair settlement of the labour question would be
the appointment of a labour commission and the abolition of day labour by the enactment of the laws to which I have just referred.
By doing so the Dominion government and parliament will certainly make a great stride towards ensuring the solid progress of the country and will give a great example to other countries.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Minister of Labour).: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the session I do not intend to make a long speech on the very important subject which has been brought to our attention this afternoon by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Yerville), who^ so ably represents the labour classes in this parliament. I must congratulate the hon. member upon his excellent speech on the subject of an eight hour day on government works. I am well aware that in the month of September last, the Trades and Laobur Congress of Canada, over which the hon. member presided, adopted a resolution in favour of the principle he has propounded this afternoon. But, Mr. Speaker, let me say at once that whilst that principle appeals to the sympathy and the deep sense of humanity and social justice in every one of us, I find that there are some very grave difficulties in the way of bringing about the happy state of things which my hon. friend has advocated. Unquestionably tne duty of parliament, as representing the nation, is to increase as much as possible the pleasures of the home life of every workingman and to multiply his opportunities for study, self-improvement and rest. In that connection I may recall to tne House that some years ago the Department of Labour, when that department had been in existence only a few months, instituted an investigation, under the Royal Seal, on the labour problems m the province of British Columbia, and that as a result the report of the Deputy Minister of Labour, Mr. Mackenzie King, now a member of the House of Commons, highly recommended the adoption of provincial legislation in favour of shorter hours in the British Columbia mines. I am pleased to state that the province of British Columbia has adopted that legislation, and that in the mines of that great province, one of the richest in the British empire, an eight hour law prevails to-day. The same "is true in the province of Alberta, where valuable coal mines have recently been opened up. But in this country, as in other countries, this question is still in the experimental stage. It has been adopted in certain industries. In nearly all the states of the American Commonwealth also there exists an eight hour law, but it has been limited to certain indus-

tries. For instance, in some of the western states, it has been adopted in irrigation works; in the mining states it has been adopted in the mines; and so on. In some of the large manufacturing states it has been adopted, but only for certain large industries. Farm work and domestic service, as a rule, have been excepted. It is true, there is also on the federal statute book of the United States an eight hour law; but from what we know in the Department of Labour it is hardly enforced. It is enforced in those states where it dove-tails, so to speak, with the state legislation. By the Bill introduced by my hon. friend last year, which he has been obliged to drop this year, and which I understand he intends to propose next year


Robert Laird Borden: Is it expected that he will press it next year with the same vigour that has distinguished him this year and last year?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend knows that many public Bills have been dropped this year. For many obvious reasons, the hon. member for Maisonneuve has not been able to press this Bill, as he would have liked to press it; but I will take my share of the responsibility for that, and my hon. friend will pardon me if I enter into a personal explanation. When the hon. member for Maisonneuve was ready at the beginning of the session to introduce his Bill, I unfortunately was unable to be present owing to the illness of my son; and I may tell my hon. friend that this is no excuse invented for the present hour. I can assure my hon. friend that on two or three different occasions the hon. member for Maisonneuve was obliged to let his Bill stand on the Order Paper because I was away on account of illness in my family. I am sure that my hon. friend will accept my word; I would not have ventured to make this personal explanation if I were not sure that he would do so. In fact, I may say that it is through my intervention that my hon. friend has been able to bring up the question to-day in another form.


Mr. MADDIN.: May I ask the hon. member if it was due to his absence from the House that this Bill was not pressed during the last session, which lasted eight months, during which this Bill was on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Maisonneuve.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend knows full well that the hon. member for Maisonneuve is the President of the Trades and Labour Council, a very important body, and that he himself, at the last congress at Halifax, moved a resolution in favour of an eight hour law. His views
on the subject are well known, and if through accident or otherwise he has been unable to press his Bill before the House, I think my hon. friend should not take advantage of that fact. This, at any rate, is a very small point, and I do not think we should stop to consider it. I say this with all due consideration to my hon. friend's objection.


Alphonse Verville: If the hon. minister will allow me? If I did not bring that Bill up during the eight months session of last year, it was simply because, like a good many other public Bills on the Order Paper, it was not reached, and I am in the same position this year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At all events it must be admitted that my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) can have no political advantage to gain either by promoting or not promoting this matter this session.


Mr. HENDERSON.: The minister, no doubt, means that as there is no election at hand, there can be no political advantage in pressing forward the Bill now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I hardly think that inference is a fair one. If my hon. friend from Maisonneuve were actuated solely by political motives, he would have promoted his Bill very assiduously last session. But he is acting from a humanitarian point of view, and it is from that point of view that I commend his conduct.


Mr. BARR.: Will the hon. minister assist him to pass the Bill next session?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not think I should be asked to commit myself in advance to supporting any Bill before I have had the opportunity of examining it. When I see the Bill next session, I will give my opinion on it unless some other hon. gentleman should have the good fortune to be Minister of Labour in my place.


James William Maddin: Does the minister mean to say that during the two sessions this Bill has been on the Order Paper and during the discussions and consultations he has had with the hon. member for Maisonneuve, he never saw the Bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have seen the Bill as it was framed last year and this year, and I may say at once that, as drawn, I would not support the measure, but I say that it is legislation well worth studying and investigating. My hon. friend, I am sure, would not rush into the acceptance of any legislation unless he felt quite safe in concluding that it was proper legislation to adopt. The principle involved is a very good one, but there are objections to the proposition of my hon. friend. He intends asking, by the Bill which he proposes to introduce next session, the enactment of an


Rodolphe Lemieux: eight hour law on all government contracts; but it is a matter of common knowledge that the labour organizations, and especially the Trades and Labour Council, will not stop there. They not only ask an eight hour law on government contracts but, by resolution adopted at the last meeting held in Halifax, they asked that that principle should also be extended to all individual contracts. Suppose we were to adopt an eight hour law in government contracts, that would be at once in conflict with provincial legislation as it stands. We could only pass such legislation as regards government works, because individual contracts come within the definition of civil rights,which are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. But what is the position at present? In my opinion the stand taken by the Labour Department in enforcing what is called ' the fair wages clause, is the most rational that can be taken under the circumstances and under out constitution. According to that clause, in every contract and schedule prepared by the officers of the Department of Labour is inserted the condition that the contractor shall pay the wages and adopt the number of working hours current in the district in which the contract is being executed. So that if in any one of the provinces, for instance in the province of Manitoba, the eight hour law were introduced by the legislature, the Department of Labour would insert in any Dominion contract in that province a schedule compelling the contra.ctor to pay the rates of wages and agree to the working hours current in that province. So that our fair wages clause in all Dominion government contracts would agree with the provincial legislation as regards hours of labour and rates of wages. With the exception of the mines in British Columbia and Alberta where the eight hour system is in force, there is no province which has adopted that system, but there are customs which prevail in one province and another. In some, according to climatic conditions, workingmen labour only nine hours per day. In others they work ten and in others eleven. In certain seasons of the year, the men work seven and eight hours and in others nine, ten and eleven hours. So that, by means of our fair wages clause, we can always suit Dominion government contracts to the circumstances existing in the different provinces. Whereas if we were to adopt legislation forcing Dominion contractors to adopt the eight hour system, we would be in conflict with usages and customs which exist in the different provinces. I claim that it is better to continue the present system of a fair wages clause and not to adopt a rule which would create serious industrial disturbances and perhaps industrial conflicts in some portions of the country. Let me give an instance.
I see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) in his place. He knows that dredging work is very common in the several provinces of this young country. We are building up our ports and are especially attracted toward the adoption of a proper scheme of transportation facilities. Now, dredges are being built everywhere; the dredge has become a great instrument of our future prosperity. Take the case of the Poison Iron Works-(I do not know if they are still in existence; I know I visited these works some years ago). We all know that into the construction of a dredge enter many parts, hundreds of parts small and great, and that hundreds of men are employed in the construction of one of these great machines. Suppose that the Minister of Public Works gives a contract to the Poison Iron Works for the construction of a dredge. The Poison works employ several hundred men. In the same factory, in the same shop, you will have ten or twenty shifts of men, some of them working on the several portions of the government dredge, and some of them working on other individual contracts. Will you not cause friction, will you not cause heartburnings, will you not cause, in the long run, serious industrial disturbances, if you have working side by side two shifts of men, one working for eight hours and the other for ten and eleven hours, at the same rate of wages?- for I do not suppose that my hon. friend (Mr. Verville) from the Trades and Labour Council anticipates that the wages will be decreased. Mr. Speaker, there is another consideration: Shall we introduce in this country an eight-hour law and expect to maintain the same rate of wages? I know that the labour unions will say: * Shorter hours, better men, better skill, better help.' True. But the man who pays will say: ' Shorter hours, less work; less work less pay.' A measure such as the one contemplated by my hon. friend, if enacted, would naturally tend to restrict, and restrict very seriously, the supply of labour. If the prevailing day of ten hours were suddenly reduced to eight, it would be tantamount to cutting off one-fifth of our labour force, so far as our productive capacity is concerned. Estimating our population at 7,000,000, of whom, let us say, 1,000,000 are working peo-pie, it would be on a par with a proposal to deport 200,000 of our population. It seems difficult to understand how we can reconcile such a step with the immigration policy of the government which for years has been steadily directed toward getting people on the land.
Now, as regards this question of the rate of wages, although as I stated a moment ago, nothing is said on this point by my hon. friend from Maisonneuve, it goes without saying that one of the principles of organized labour is that the eight-hour day : shall carry with it the same rate of wages

as is paid under the longer hours. If the employer who is at present getting nine hours' labour per day out of his men suddenly finds himself compelled to give them the same wage for a day of eight hours, it means that for the same money he is only getting eight-ninths as much productive labour as before. In other words, the cost of his productive labour is increased eleven per cent. In the case of the employer who is at present working his men ten hours a day, it means an increase in the cost of productive labour of twenty per cent. This constitutes a serious increase in the cost of production of any manufactured article, or in the cost of any public work. And, in the case of manufactured articles, it must inevitably be reflected in a marked advance in the price charged to the consumer. On this point, is, it fair, in this country, where our winter is long and where, so to speak, our manufacturers and our working men are handicapped by it, that we should enact legislation which, for all the year round, would restrict the hours of labour to eight? I am only putting the question. I have not gone very deeply into the subject, but I say that in this young country of ours, where all our energies are bent on building up our industries, handicapped as we are by that long winter, it would not be fair to enact shorter hours of labour. Our railway construction, our canal construction, the different industries of the country would suffer too much by such an enactment.
Another consideration and I am done. I said a moment ago that if we were to adopt such legislation-and I am one of those who think that the proposal is worth inquiring into, and I hope it will be inquired into-we should be placing our producers in an unfair position in competition with the producers of other countries. We are competing with countries where labour is notoriously cheap. Sooner or later-and I think sooner rather than later-we shall probably be competing against Asiatic races, notably China and Japan, in the process of manufacturing. Then, I say, Sir, would it be fair to either the manufacturer or the consumer of this country to be thus handicapped? For those considerations, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the question needs to be studied very carefully, and we must be satisfied with leaving it in its experimental stage for some years to come. Certainly, the principle involved in the measure propounded by my hon. friend for Maisonneuve must appeal to every man with a heart, to every man who is imbued with humanitarian sentiments. But as I have said, there are very strong objections from a business point of view to the adoption of that system, also from a national point of view. I think that the provinces have enacted the proper legislation to protect working-men in the shops and also Mr. LEMIEUX.
child labour. Public opinion will always compel the great industries to give shorter hours, such as the mining industries in British Columbia and in Alberta. Public opinion can always be relied upon to compel the operators to adopt a proper system. But I say again, from a national point of view, from a business point of view, there are serious objections to the adoption in its entirely of the principle laid down at the last meeting of the Trades and Labour Council. I sincerely believe that a remedy has been found in the legislation I mentioned a moment ago, which was adopted by this parliament in 1900. I refer to the fair-wage clause proposed in this House by my predecessor Sir William Mulock, which has been inserted in every government contract since then, and has worked wonderfully well.


James Davis Taylor: I am reminded at the present time of the trite saying that 'fine words butter no parsnips.' I am sure that those who have at heart the best interests of the working classes in this country will be disappointed at the pronouncement we have just heard from the minister in charge of the Department of Labour, and which seems to indicate that so far as this government and the ruling party are concerned, we can expect from them no encouragement of the eight-hour movement. For myself I am free to say that I am in hearty sympathy, not only with the nrinciple, but with the practice, of the eight-hour day. I think it well becomes this parliament to set an example to private employers of labour all over Canada, as they have done already in inserting in government contracts the clause which the Minister of Labour has mentioned. Still I cannot help but think that it is a reproach upon this parliament and a reproach upon the sincerity of those who in the House and also outside parliament have professed sympathy with the eight-hour movement, that two sessions have passed during which this motion has been upon the Order Paper and that we have not yet found time to discuss it. I think that in his heart every member of this House knows that it is not because of lack of opportunity that we have made no progress with this movement. I think the explanation is to be found rather in the statement we have just had from the Minister of Labour that the government are unalterably opposed to the proposition, and that it was not brought forward, because, whether rightly or wrongly, in the judgment of the hon. member promoting it, he did not wish to court the disaster which now appears to have overtaken his proposal. I do not intend to discuss the question at this time, because it is quite evident that to do so would be fruitless. But I think it is only fair that some of us who believe in

the principle and practice of an eight-hour day should stand up in our places and proclaim our faith when we have an opportunity to do so.


Adam Brown Crosby: I do not think that anything can be gained by discussing at this time the question that has been brought before the House by the hon. member'for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville). It is evident that there is no desire on the part of the government to discuss this proposition in the way it should be discussed. I had been informed that it was to come up in this House at an earlier period of the session; in fact the hon. gentleman who has introduced it spoke to me about it, and I expected it would come up in a proper form, in the way of a resolution, and be submitted to the House and the country in a proper way. But as this has not been done, I do not propose to waste the time of the House in discussing a matter which would only mean to use idle words and to idle away the time. Nothing can be gained by doing so, after what we have iust heard from the Minister of Labour. I do not think that it is up to this House to worry themselves very much over what the provinces are doing or what anybody else is doing. The question we have to consider is whether we are prepared to adopt the principle of an eight-hour day in government contracts. I have no hesitation in placing myself on record on that question, and in saying that I think it should be done. It is up to this government to show the provincial governments an examnle. This proposal can only be brought forward for the purpose of allowing some hon. gentleman to make little speeches, so that they may be able to tell their constituents that something was being done, while as a matter of fact nothing was being done.


David Henderson: I have no desire to sit silent and allow this motion to be voted upon, if there is a motion. Some hon. gentleman says there is no motion. At any rate, I have no hesitation in expressing my opinion on the question that has been brought forward by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verviile). I sympathize with him in his desire to draw towards himself the workingmen of his section of the country, in his extreme desire to make them believe that he is a lion fighting in their interest, that, as the head and front of the Trades and Labour Council, he is doing everything he can to secure something for the workingmen of the country. Now to state my position briefly,
I do not believe in class legislation of this kind. I believe that a man working on a government contract has just as good a right to work ten hours a day as a man
working in a factory or on a farm. I do not see why we should pay a man more for working on a public building, say on the museum in the city of Ottawa, than a man working on a private building on the other side of the street, the one working eight hours and the other ten.
Why should we grant favours to one working man and do nothing for the other? It shows that the hon. gentleman has no interest in the working men as a class but only in a few. This question has no application to my own county and consequently I speak on it with the utmost freedom. We have no government contracts in the county, and I suppose that as long as the present government is in power and I am in this House there may not be any government contracts. I do not want labour to be disturbed by mischievous legislation of this kind. It would be a disturbing thing, as I said, all over the country to have a law that a man, because he is working for the government, would be paid full price for his labour and work only eight hours, while the man who was otherwise employed would have to work 10 hours a day. The thing is so utterly and absolutely inconsistent that I do not believe the working-men themselves can be deceived by it. Therefore I have no sympathy with the hon. gentleman's speech, of which I did not hear a word, because he did not speak loudly, while the hon. gentleman who read an essay from the back part of the House read it in such a low tone that we did not get the benefit of it. The other hon. gentleman, unfortunately, spoke in French, and I could not catch all that he said. Whatever he did say I presume was along the line of making a little cheap capital and these hon. gentlemen are welcome to all they can get out of it. In my county hon. gentlemen will find no sympathy with this movement. I have received protests against this legislation. We do not want class legislation of this kind, we want fair play for all; what is good for one working-man is good for all. There may be certain classes of labour such as mining and underground work which is dangerous or exceptionally trying and it is only proper that men engaged in such employment should work shorter hours. But the position that a man employed on a public building, simply because it is being erected by the government, is to be turned loose two hours sooner than the other man who is working on a private building is so utterly and absolutely absurd that I do not expect that the hon. gentleman ever thinks of making this House believe that such a law could be passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
Experimental farms, $73,500.
['We will clear them off\non Monday.']
Mr. U. WILSON.: I think there was a distinct arrangement that we should take up immigration.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Finance Minister asked me to go on but I am quite willing to give place if the Minister of the Interior is here.


Uriah Wilson: Have you many items?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Just the one item. The item is reduced as will be seen; that is due to the same cause as in other cases, the transference of salaries here in Ottawa to the civil government list.


Mr. DANIEL.: What success has been achieved in connection with the Nappan experimental farm?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Nappan farm is for the benefit of the maritime provinces. It is situated close to the boundary line close to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The farm has been managed as a stock farm. Some years ago we ran it chiefly for dairying but we were very unfortunate some three or four years ago in getting tuberculosis into the herd and we were obliged to take the whole herd away. We had not been very successful in arousing the interest of the people of that neighbourhood in dairying and we thought it was better for a few years to run the farm more as a beef producing farm than to reveTt to dairying. Accordingly we have lately been feeding steers there for beef production and our experiments have been more in connection with that branch. We have been able to show that beef can be produced most successfully in Nova Sootia, and I think I may say in the maritime provinces generally at a fair profit although the high price of feed during the last two winters, especially last winter, has interfered with it. And I think that farmers generally in the maritime provinces have suffered from this same trouble. We have also kept a small flock of sheep there but the farm does not seem to be particularly adapted for sheep raising.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is it chiefly low lying land, meadow land?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, it is both dyke land and upland. The land on the farm is not of a high quality. I think that is peculiar rather to that farm than to the whole Tegion but undoubtedly the farm itself is not very fertile. We have also been carrying on fruit experiments there and have shown that in that part of Nova Scotia successful apple growing can be carried on. We have two orchards, one in the open, and the other in a piece of woods which has been Mr. HENDERSON.
cleared for that purpose so that that orchard is sheltered by the surrounding woods, and it has been found that the sheltered orchard is perhaps the more succes-ful, although even the other one has been made successful.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What effort is being made to disseminate information of the results obtained from the farm?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The reports, of course, appear in the regular farm reports and then in addition to that there is a special report of that farm bound separately which is sent out to farmers who do not care to have the full report of all the experimental farms. In addition to that we have encouraged excursions to the farms and every summer several excursions come from the maritime provinces and facilities are given for visiting the farm.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is there much publicity given to that; this is the first time I have heard of it?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is generally known in the maritime provinces. The manager of the Nappan farm always visits the fat stock show at Amherst and we send representatives to the several exhibitions in the maritime provinces.


John Waterhouse Daniel: In New Brunswick, where the attention of the farmers is divided between lumbering and farming, I have always thought that there should be a means of educating the farmers in the most successful methods of agriculture. If this government could in any way spread abroad a knowledge of the soils and of the crops best suited to them, it would be of great advantage to the people. In Ontario and Quebec there are agricultural colleges, but 1 do not think there are any such institutions in the maritime provinces. When the government does begin to establish agricultural colleges I trust they will at the very earliest opportunity direct their attention to New Brunswick.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The experimental farms are not educational institutions in the sense of having students. That class of agricultural education, as all education, is in the hands of the provincial authorities. Nova Scotia has a very good agricultural college at Truro, and although New Brunswick has no regular agricultural college it has a very good dairy school at Sussex, at which every winter one of the departmental officers helps in the course of instruction. We have experimental plots at the farm at Nappan and visitors see the results of the different methods of cultivating the different varieties of crops. We have been making experiments in the growing of forage crons which were formerly not much known in the maritime provinces. Our manager.

invariably goes to the great meeting of the farmers and dairymen's associations of New Brunswick which annually holds a three days' session, and discusses the agricultural problems of the province. Frequently officers of the experimental farm go to that meeting and they inform the institute workers in the province of the results obtained on the experimental farm. In that way educational work is constantly going on.


Mr. FRASER.: I know that there have been negotiations between the Dominion government and the government of Prince Edward Island for some time past in reference to the establishment of an experimental farm at Prince Edward Island, this season. Would the minister tell me in what position that matter stands at present?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am very glad to be able to tell my hon. friend that the premier of Prince Edward Island has been here in the last few days and that we have come to a definite arrangement for the establishment of a branch station in a very suitable position within about one quarter of a mile of the boundary of Charlottetown. We will hardly get possession in time for the crops of this season, but we will have everything ready for next season.


Mr. BURRELL.: What steps have been taken' towards the establishment of additional experimental stations in the province of British Columbia, more especially with respect to the fruit growing industry?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I hope this season to be able to investigate several sites which have been represented to me as favourable so that before the end of the year we may be able to have one and perhaps two additional branch stations on the mainland of British Columbia. It is very advisable that in the interior of British Columbia, especially where the climate is quite different from that of Agassiz that there should be an experimental establishment. I have already said to the hon. gentleman that it is an embarra-s des richesses in British Columbia because there are so many different districts and the conditions so different in each district that it is very hard to find any one place where the experimental work will be of use to the whole province. It mav involve additional expense but I am inclined to think that more than one place will be required to really meet the demand of the fruit growers of the province, and I want to meet this demand as quickly as possible.


Martin Burrell: I am very glad to hear the statement of the minister; I suppose he refers to the semi-arid belt.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I don't like the use of the word arid at all.


Martin Burrell: I said semi-arid.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Semi-fertile.


Martin Burrell: It is all fertile, but I had reference more especially to the districts where irrigation is practiced. There is great necessity for establishments of this kind in British Columbia, because I should think that 90 per cent of the people who are going into fruit growing and investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in the industry in that province are not particularly familiar with that branch of agriculture. I hope the minister will be able to push that work vigorously and have something done this summer.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will try.


Mr. BARNARD.: What is the situation with Tegard to a station on Vancouver island?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There have been some sites suggested on the island. I think there ought to be a station established there, and what I am referring to would not interfere at all with that.


George Henry Barnard: I think the people on the island were practically assured last October that a station would be established there at once.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I hope to be able to pick out a site this season.


Mr. SEXSMITH.: I would like to ask the minister if he intends to put up an experimental cold storage station for apples, as recommended in a previous discussion in the House? .


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, I will bring down an iiem in the supplementary estimates for a special experiment in regard to cold storage for fruit. I am asking, in a Bill now before the House, for a very slight change in the wording of the Cold Storage Act, for the operation of which this item is intended. Under the law at present, the warehouses to get the subsidy must provide accommodation for all kinds of food products. It has been represented to me that there are districts where there are special needs for cold storage for fruit alone. Under the wording of the Act at present, I could not give the bonus for this, and I am asking parliament to give me the authority to do so by changing one word in the Act. When that change is made, as I hope it will be this session, I expect to be able to give assistance to some apple cold storages, and I hope, if I get the item in the supplementary estimates voted, to conduct some experimental work in the way of handling fruit in that cold storage.


James Davis Taylor: With regard to branch experimental farms, I understood the minister to intimate that when he got this station established in the interior, the

work of fruit experiments at Agassiz will be somewhat contracted?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Oh, no.
Mr^J. D. TAYLOR. I would like to ask the minister if he has given any consideration to the question of extending the attention given to dairying at the Agassiz farm?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I can only say that from my own observation of the work at the Agassiz farm, it does not seem to me to be very favourably situated for the successful prosecution of dairying. We are always doing a little work of that kind there, but it does not appear to be very successful. Dairying is a very important item in the agriculture of British Columbia, and I hope that if we establish a farm on the island, we may be able to carry on successfully there experiments which would be of use to all the dairying districts of the province.


James Davis Taylor: I take it that the experimental farm on the island would be towards the northerly part of th.e island?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot say exactly yet.


James Davis Taylor: As to the opinion that the minister has formed of the suitability of the Agassiz district for dairying, I think his statement will come as a shock to the residents there, who are engaged largely in dairying and with very gTeat success. It has been a matter of comment on their part that while they are pfosecuting dairying with great success, it is almost entirely neglected on the farm, which is situated precisely as the land adjoining it is situated. I have heard there serious criticism of the fact that the government neglects what would be of most service to the only persons who have opportunities of seeing that farm. Without setting myself up as an agricultural expert, and speaking only from what I have heard from the residents of that district, I do not think that the minister's estimate of the unsuitability of that section for dairying will be accepted by the residents.


Mr. BEATTIE.: While the minister is assisting a number of cold storage plants, I think he should be very careful not to assist any where there are already good storage plants established. In the city of London we have one of the best cold storage plants in the province of Ontario, established entirely by private capital, and I have heard that there is going to be established at St. Alary's a rival plant which will receive the assistance of the government. I do not suppose that will be objected to by the Chairman (Mr. Alclntyre). but it is onlv twenty miles away, and I think it would be a mistake to assist a cold storage plant within that distance which will come into competition with another one established by private money.


Mr.  J. D.@: 


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The decision as to whether a cold storage plant shall receive the bonus or not is left to the department, and what my hon. friend has alluded to is always taken into consideration in dealing with applications. I would not like to say that in no case should a cold storage plant be aided which is within twenty miles of another cold storage plant. In some parts of the country there would not be business enough for a cold storage plant within fifty or one hundred miles, while in other parts of the country there might be business for cold storage plants every ten miles. We have to take that into consideration in dealing with the applications. Sometimes, too, by reason of railway accommodation, two cold storage plants might be very close together, while there might not be another within twenty or thirty miles of them, and still, for the general convenience of the country and the help of the industry, it might be wise to have both cold storage plants.


Thomas Beattie: All I want is that that point should be taken into consideration, that no cold storage plant _ should be established by government assistance in competition with another which is established by private money.


Adam Brown Crosby: Has it yet been decided to what company assistance for the cold storage plant in Halifax shall be given?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No decision has been come to. There are two applications before the department, the relative claims of which appear to be so equal that we have not yet been able to come to a conclusion.


Adam Brown Crosby: I understand from the secretary of the board of trade that that body desire that the subsidy should not be granted until they know something of the company to receive it; but, as far as I understand, both companies are acceptable to the board of trade.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 1 have not made inquiry yet.


Adam Brown Crosby: Might I ask what time the department will likely decide?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As soon as possible, but I cannot say exactly, I shall have to get some further information.


Air. LAKE.: In the Auditor General's Report of last year, under the head of Health of Animals, I see some charges with respect to an outbreak of rabies at Aloosomin. What was the extent of that outbreak and what measures were taken to stamp it out?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We passed an order in council quarantining that section.


David Marshall: I would ask the hon. minister to consider the advisability of extending the cold storage system to the fish-

eries. Our market is principally the United States, and when there is a large catch they get news of it and put the price down to an absurdly low figure. We have sometimes to sell our fish at a cent and a half per pound, which does not pay for the catching and marketing of it. It seems to me that the fishing industry should have some encouragement. I would ask the minister to give it some assistance by aiding the establishment of freezers.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I could not do that under the Act as it stands, but with the change I am asking parliament to adopt, I shall be able to do it. Anybody then who wishes to establish cold storage for fish would be able to get a bonus of 30 per cent on the cost of the system.


David Marshall: I understand that fish "have to be frozen, so that a freezer would be required.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A cold storage warehouse could be made to freeze just as well as to keep chilled. It is a mere matter of reducing the temperature by increasing the power.


John Albert Sexsmith: I see in the Auditor General's Report a charge of $250,000 under the heading of Health of Animals and $52,000 for the development of the live stock industry. Why should the former cost so much more?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The item regarding health of animals is so large because we have to pay compensation for the slaughtered animals. A few years ago we undertook to stamp out glanders, and some years before hog cholera. We succeeded in stamping out hog cholera practically. I warned the House when we undertook to stamp out glanders, that for some years it would cost as high as $150,000 a year to slaughter and pay compensation for the horses we were obliged to kill. I am glad to say we are reducing that. The year before last the cost was $102,000 and last year a little over $80,000. I hope it will be much more reduced. We have not only had to pay compensation but also to put on a very strong force of watchers along the American frontier. In the Northwest especially, we found the outbreaks of glanders largely traced to horses brought across the line. There seemed to be almost a system of buying suspicious animals in the United States and bringing them over and then when they were tested and found diseased we had to slaughter them and pay compensation. So we had to
Sut on a force to test the horses brought to le country. The last few years we have been testing every horse brought from the United States. It is largely because of this, that the reduction has taken place. I may say to my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) that there were some six dogs shown to be diseased in the neighbourhood 189
of Moosomin and that district was quarantined six months and we required all dogs to be muzzled.


Richard Stuart Lake: How many dogs were infected with the diseasd?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: About six confirmed and others suspected.


Richard Stuart Lake: Confirmed by scientific test?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Richard Stuart Lake: There was a great deal of comment in Moosomin at the time over this. The expenditure seemed very large for the carrying out of the muzzling order and looking after this work. Two men were employed at $2 a day each. And $4 a day for livery. One man apparently put in 113 days livery -work. What check had the government upon these two men and what special qualifications had they for the work? What were the instructions from the department to the men who were carrying on this work? Had they been told the conditions, it seems to me they would have been able to purchase a team and rig for less than they paid for the horse-hire, and, at the same time, could have handed over the horses and rig to the department. It seems to me a very extravagant expenditure indeed to pay that sum for a continuous service of 113 days. It is hard to credit the statement that it took all that time to properly quarantine even a district of the size the minister has described. There were two men, one employed for 71 days at $2 per day for wages and $4 for a horse, and the other for 113 days at the same rates. It seems to me that the service might have been much less expensively performed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We did not know at the time of the outbreak how long it was going to last or how long we should need to maintain this quarantine. I think the rate of $2 a day is not too much for a man competent for that kind of work, especially considering the season of the year.


Richard Stuart Lake: What were their qualifications?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They were good, solid men, who knew the country. Their duty was to drive about and watch for cases of this disease. It was responsible work, and any man above the condition of a labourer would get this amount for his time. As to the time occupied, had we known that the men were to be for months employed, it might have been cheaper to buy a horse, and even if we had to kill it at the end of the time. I do not know what the price of horses was at that time. But $4 a day for a livery rig in the Northwest is not an out-



of-the-way price. We pay $3 here in the east.


Richard Stuart Lake: It was continuous work?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, and if we had known that it would be continuous for so long, we might have done it a little more cheaply, but there was no expectation that it would take so long. These men were under the direction of one of our veterinaries who looked into the matter and signed or .initialled all the accounts. And these men were obliged to report once a week as to where they had been and what they had done.


Richard Stuart Lake: Has the minister a statement of the different cases that occurred? As this covers a considerable length of time, there must have been intervals between the cases. How long does it take for the disease to develop?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not the reports under my hand, but they are in the department-every case of disease or even suspicion of the disease. I am informed by the veterinary that the regular period of incubation is three weeks to a year, and we cannot tell whether it is going tq develop or not. Once the disease is introduced into a district, it is a most insidious one, very liable to spread and one the deplorable results of which are well known. I thought that the advantage to be gained through these precautions was well worth the trouble involved.


Richard Stuart Lake: I thoroughly agree with the minister on that point; the disease should be stamped out at once. But my impression was, and the impression in the neighbourhood seemed to be, that the inspectors were having a soft snap. I agree that it is necessary to take the most strenuous steps to keep this disease under control. All I say is that every precaution should be taken ' to see that the work should be properly and economically done.


John Barr: In looking over the expenditures under 'Health of Animals,' I find

Auditor General's Report, page D-52-an item of $1,300 of salary to W. W. Stork, Brampton, inspector. It is shown that he received also expenses $814.60. Just below that, I find that W. W. Stubbs, Caledon, inspector, was paid $1,300 salary and $30 expenses. These two live within a few miles of each other.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Dr. Stubbs was stationed at one place, while the other man is a travelling inspector who travels all over the province.


John Barr: What territory has Mr. Stubbs?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Mrj FISHER.: He lives in Caledon, and his work is all there.


John Barr: Not in Caledon, surely, for that is only a small place.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, he is working just around there.


John Barr: Only in that little district? There is no work there. Is he liable to be called out in any direction? It is generally supposed that he is not much away from, home.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Like all our men, he is liable to be sent, but if not sent he does not go.


John Barr: Then he receives $1,300 salary and $30 expenses, and has no special territory. What I would like to know is, for instance in the county of Dufferin, who is the proper one to apply to in case of an outbreak of disease in animals? It is a strange thing that these two veterinary inspectors, receiving $1,300 each, live within a few miles of each other, and probably neither of them do very much. Does Mr. Stork travel, or does he inspect the other veterinarians?
Mr. -FISHER. No.


John Barr: Then why does he travel? They don't know in Brampton what he has to do. What travelling does he do to earn these expenses?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: All such travelling expenses are checked over and proved to be correct.


John Barr: The cheeking is not very stringently carried out. Nobody there seems to know where he spent the $814.60. Nobody knows that he has been called to go out of the district into the country. There is another question here that troubles me. These two inspectors in Brampton and Caledon are only within a few miles of each other, and the rest of all that vast country in Dufferin county has no government inspection whatever. Of course they are following their profession, to a great extent. But nobody knows in Brampton what W. W. Stork is doing, or how this sum for travelling expenses is made up. I hope the hon. gentleman will bring down a detailed statement of that expenditure. Are both of these men allowed t.o practise their profession?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Neither of them. Their whole time is devoted to our work. They are not allowed to take fees from anybody else. But I will see that the hon. gentleman gets the particulars.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE.: I would like to know from the minister why they employ

five veterinary surgeons in the city of Winnipeg and pay them over $10,000?
Mr, FISHER. The whole veterinary work for the province of Manitoba is done from the city of Winnipeg.


William Henry Sharpe: I have a list here showing that $2,622 are paid to veterinaries outside of the city of Winnipeg. There is one at Emerson, drawing $1,200 a year; there is one at Gretna, drawing $1,200 a year; one at Bannerman, $1,200; one at Oak River, $198; one at Melita, $59; Boisevain, $86; one at Rossburn, $387; one at Portage la Prairie, $300; one at Shoal Lake, $556; one at Hamiota, $44; another at Hamiota, $294; one at Gladstone, $697.
I want to tell the minister that the last year the province of Manitoba handled this department, and all it cost was $3,655, while this government paid out for the same service $14,179. I think we have a right to get an explanation.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course I do not know exactly what the Manitoba government does, or how much it does. We have to deal with the health of animals in Winnipeg and in the province of Manitoba. Winnipeg is the great centre of traffic from the further west eastward, and a large proportion of our inspection work is done in the city of Winnipeg. When an outbreak occurs in any part of the province it is cheaper to send out inspectors from Winnipeg than from any other part. It is true we have some men stationed on the frontier between the United States and Canada to watch the boundary line. I think the men stationed in those places the hon. gentleman mentioned are chiefly engaged in that work. A good deal of the stock that comes from the United States is also inspected at Winnipeg instead of at the boundary, because trains are run directly into Winnipeg.


William Henry Sharpe: Immigrants come in sometimes with horses affected with glanders. Looking over the list I find you have only four veterinaries at the international boundary in the whole province of Manitoba. It looks to me as if this money was not being spent in a proper way. I cannot understand why this government should have to spend $14,197 when the Roblin government did the work for a little over $3,000.


Adam Brown Crosby: I would like some information on this item of $110,000 for the administration and enforcement of the Meat and Canned Foods Act.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is now after six o'clock, and I move that the committee rise and report progress. I will give the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby) the explanation
he asks for on the supplementary estimates.
Some resolutions reported.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 34) to incorporate the Ontario and Michigan Power Company.-Mr. Conmee.
Mr. LENNOX.: We will endeavour to carry out the understanding arrived at that although discussion is always legitimate on this side of the House, it will be particularly to-night. We wish to bring certain matters before the attention of the House and, having stated these, we will leave it to the government to decide whether, under all the circumstances, they think this legislation should be passed. I first desire to read a letter from the Attorney General of the province of Ontario to the Minister of Finance, a copy of which has been sent to me. The letter contains the statement that certain copies have been sent out. It reads as follows :
Toronto, May 6, 1908. My dear Mr. Fielding,
Re Ontario and Michigan Power Company.
I observe on page 5554 of the ' Hansard * of May 3, that you made some reference to several days' delay to enable the province of Ontario to present its views, and as the Bill comes up to-morrow, I, at the request of the prime minister of Ontario, send you a hurried memorandum on the subject.
It is somewhat difficult in the short time at our disposal to appreciate the present plight of this Bill, or to present very fully the views of the government on the question.
Even if we assume for the moment the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada to incorporate this company we nevertheless contend that it has not an exclusive jurisdiction, and that it is also competent for the legislature of Ontario to deal with the matter, and that the company being one with local objects, and proposing to deal with matters which affect the property of the province of Ontario, the parliament of Canada should stay its hand and leave the matter to be dealt with by the legislature of Ontario, a province that is so materially interested.
The claim that the jurisdiction to deal with the matter resides exclusively in the parliament of Canada, is, I understand, rested upon two grounds. The first is that the Pigeon river is an international stream. In our view that does not oust the jurisdiction of the legislature of Ontario. This is not a case in which a treaty or international arrangement is to be made between the governments of the two countries, although it is quite possible the promoters may obtain legis-


Mr. GUTHRIE.: My hon. friend has mentioned my name in connection with the Canadian Niagara Power Company. My recollection is that I merely asked the postponement of the Bill for a week as I had received a letter from the mayor of Guelph stating that the council desired to look into it to see if it did not interfere with any rights they may have under contract for the supply of power.


Haughton Lennox: I accept the hon. gentleman's statement. I stated what was
5961 MAY 7, 1909 5962	
contained in the memorandum furnished to me. Mr. CONMEE. Is it not a fact that that company had a contract with the Ontario Niagara Park Commission which is an international commission, and which might give them some authority which no other company could obtain except at Niagara Falls? Mr. LENNOX. I do not know as to that. I understand that under the powers obtained from the local legislature they are exporting power. I have no instructions as to the statement made by the hon. gentleman. Now, there is objection entered to this company being granted expropriation powers over lands which the Ontario government have reserved along the Nipigon river. The Prime Minister will remember that the Bill has been cut down in its scope so that so far as the Nipigon river is concerned they only ask expropriation powers for the purpose of erecting transmission wires. They have abandoned as I understand the provision enabling them to generate power along the river. Mr. CONMEE. In so far as this Bill is concerned they have abandoned any power of expropriation with regard to the Nipigon river or with respect to any of the lands to which reference is made. The transmission lines would not touch the reserve; the company do not mean a transmission line in that sense. If they submitted plans for any such line they would not be approved and there is no danger of a clash between the company and the provincial authorities in that respect. Mr. LENNOX. It would seem as if there was necessity for guarding against the granting of the power asked, and subsection 5 of section 15 it is suggested should be in this form: The expropriation powers hereby conferred upon the company shall not be exercised by it until the plans mentioned in section 18 of this Act shall have received the approval therein provided for, and with respect to any lands upon the Nipigon river shall not be exercised except as to such land as may be required for the purpose of these transmission lines. The section of the Bill as now proposed does not exclude the lands reserved by the government of Ontario, and so, if it is thought advisable to pass this Bill at all -and I am going to leave the responsibility for its passage upon the Prime Minister-it will be necessary to word that section in such a way as to place it beyond doubt that we do not intend in this parliament to grant power by which one government shall vest in a private individual the right to expropriate the lands of another government in	the Dominion of Canada. If my hon. friend (Mr. Conmee) is content now to have it worded in such a way as to remove this objection there will be no necessity for referring to that point further. Mr. CONMEE. I would be quite prepared to exclude the chain reserve to which the hon. gentleman makes reference. The clause was drawn up by Mr. Ritchie of this city who I believe to be a very careful lawyer, and I also spoke to the Minister of Justice about that point, and there is no power in the Bill to take land along the river. At all events that is not the intention. The provision is that the transmission wires may come to the Nipigon river but there is no intention of going on to the chain reserve. Mr. LENNOX. If my hon. friend does not want to consent we will have to argue it. To my mind this clause, without question, allows expropriation for the purpose of erecting poles anywhere along the Nipigon river. The expression 'lands upon the Nipigon river ' means land adjoining that river, and the right would be exercisable upon that chain, or two chains in some oases, which the government has reserved. We will strenuously oppose anything which will give the right of expropriating on the reserve of the Ontario government. Mr. CONMEE. Will it satisfy the hon. gentleman to state: But not within the one-chain or two-chain reserve along the said river. Mr. LENNOX. What will satisfy us is anything that will make it clear that we are not interfering in any way with the lands owned or reserved by the province. Mr. CONMEE. My hon. friend is speaking of the chain reserve only. Mr. LENNOX. I am not speaking of anything technical. What we contend is, that it will be very unwise and very unfair to grant to a private speculative company the right to take by force land belonging to or reserved by a province. The province of Ontario or the province of Manitoba or any other province represents the Crown just as effectually and fully in its sphere as the Dominion parliament, and it would surely be a most unseemly thing if this parliament should, at the instance of a private speculative company, wrest the rights of a province from it against the will of that province. This is the right of eminent domain, which rests in the Crown. For the purposes of this parliament it rests in this parliament. For matters under the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario it rests in the Ontario government. Should it happen that the federal head will, at the instance of an individual, grant to that

individual that eminent domain which the province desires to retain for itself ? In 'that paragraph there is another clause to Which I wish to call the Prime Minister's attention, as to the formal policy of the Ontario government with reference to the development of power. This clause is concluded in these words :
The province desires to retain this river in its integrity for purposes of its own.
When it says for purposes of its own, it has made it manifest by its action that these are for the purposes of the people of the province of Ontario, by lightening the taxes on them. They have entered on that policy vigorously, and have brought it already into successful operation.
It forms an important factor in the general policy of the government of the province of Ontario in connection with the generation of electrical power, and the parliament of Canada should not, it is submitted, interfere with it.
I think I am right in saying that the First Minister .was impressed in the very early discussion of this Bill with the importance of that aspect of the case, and I hope that as the discussion has gone on, it has not served to eliminate that impression from his mind, but that he has become more impressed with the importance of letting not only the province of Ontario but all the provinces act on the line, of developing as far as possible all the resources within their control for the benefit of their people. There is no doubt in any part of Canada about the wisdom of the policy the Ontario government has so successfully initiated in this regard. Probably a brief expression from the Prime Minister might facilitate dealing with this Bill in whatever way it is to be dealt with. I will, if necessary, call the attention of the Prime Minister later to other matters that arise in connection with the Waterways and Boundary Commission. That commission a few years ago dealt with a matter very similar to the one now before us. A company called the Minnesota Canal and Power Company, or having a similar name, applied a few years ago for powers in connection with the waters that flow into the Rainy river, the Lake of the Woods and on to the Hudson bay. The matter of diverting those waters southward and emptying them into Lake Superior at Duluth has been taken up by that commission and referred to this government. That matter has not been settled, but as far as it has gone I understand that the government and the commission have recognized that it rests upon certain treaty rights defined and governed by. the Webs-ter-Ashburton treaty, and neither the parliament of Canada nor the parliament of the United States, but the Waterways Commission, ought to deal with it in the first instance, and that until a satisfactory Mr. LENNOX.
arrangement has been come to between the two governments, no private right should be granted. I need not dwell on that aspect of the case; probably the Prime Minister is familiar with it.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is its connection with this question?


Haughton Lennox: In that case the Minnesota Power and Canal Company applied to the United States legislature to grant them the power to dam up the waters of certain lakes, so that instead of allowing them to flow into the Rainy river and its tributaries, contributing to the volume of water flowing into the Lake of the Woods, the government of the United States represented that they should not be allowed to do so, because by reason of treaty rights between the Canadian government and the United States, those rivers oh that chain of lakes were made an international boundary, and neither the Dominion of Canada nor the province of Ontario alone had successful jurisdiction over the matter, and so it has been left in abeyance. In the same way, in the case of the Pigeon river, which is a part of the same chain of boundary waters, this parliament should not attempt to deal with the matters as a private matter at all. These rights between the two countries should be ascertained and defined, either directly or through the commission to which I have referred, before we grant any rights to private companies.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not see any parity at all between the case in hand and the case to which my hon. friend has alluded. He states rightly that a certain company has obtained permission from the state of Minnesota to divert some waters which flow into the Rainy river, and cause them to flow into Lake Superior at Duluth. These are altogether within the state of Minnesota. But the commission to which my hon. friend has referred has objected to this as being contrary to the provisions of the Webster-Ashburton treaty. In this case power is sought simply to develop water power on the Pigeon river. It is admitted on all sides that this power could not be exercised unless there were concurrent legislation on the other side of the river, either by Minnesota or by the United States; and therefore the exercise of this power would be on/ a parity with the exercise of the power of which my hon. friend has just spoken, which according to the Waterways Commission, could not be exercised except by the joint authority of Canada and the United States. But I think it would bg well in this matter to proceed regularly, and decide whether the preamble of this Bill should be accepted or not. This involves a question of jurisdiction, and I shall say no morel on that

point. It is a vexed one and probably will have to be settled finally by judicial authority. My hon. colleague, the Minister of Justice, has given his opinion that this parliament alone has the power to incorporate this Bill and therefore, so far as this parliament is concerned, I take that view and accept it. Later on, if thought advisable, it may be finally tested by judicial authority. I think therefore we should adopt the preamble of the Bill. Then we come to the real point of contention, which is the expropriation power. To some extent, I sympathize with the view taken by my hon. friend, but would not express any opinion on it.


Mr. LANCASTER.: My right hon. friend thinks that this parliament has exclusive jurisdiction, and I presume he means that opinion to apply to the Pigeon river. I understand that he does not claim that we have jurisdiction over the Nipigon river.


Wilfrid Laurier: In my opinion the jurisdiction of this parliament arises from the fact that this is an international waterway.


Mr.  A. C. MACDONELL .@: I cannot agree to let the preamble go without putting myself on record as opposed to it. The last time this Bill came before this committee, its discussion was adjourned for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the government of Ontario. We now have the opinion of that government, which my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) has read, and that opinion is distinctly against legislation by this House. It may be that there is concurrent jurisdiction, but that would be no reason why this House should, against the express wish of the province, grant this legislation. Even if the matter be one under Dominion control, and with which the province has nothing to do, would it be wise and proper for us to pass this Bill? Suppose the powers are confined to the Pigeon river, which is an international waterway, and suppose that this government has the sole right to grant the power to generate electricity^ on that river, would it be proper for this parliament to give to private promoters the right to generate and dispose of this electricity without any compensation or regulation? Surely we ought to be consistent, if nothing else. As recently as the present year, this government became a party to the North America Conservation Conference, composed of representatives from Canada, the United States, and I think also Mexico, the object of which was to consider the best means of conserving the natural resources of this continent. That conference met at Washington and was attended by no less than two representatives of this government, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) and the hon. member
for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), who signed their names to the report of that conference. I find that report in sessional paper No. 9 of this year, and in that report, I find this paragraph:
We regard the monopoly of waters, especially of water-powers, as peculiarly threatening. No rights to the use of water-powers and streams should hereafter be granted in perpetuity. Each grant should he conditioned upon prompt development, continued beneficial use, and the payment of proper compensation to the public for the rights enjoyed, and should be for a definite period only, such period should be no longer than is required for reasonable safety of investment. The public authorities should retain the right to readjust at stated periods the compensation to the public and to regulate the rates charged, to the end that undue profit or extortion may be prevented.
That was assented to only within a month or two, and is signed by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) and the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), representing this government. Yet in open defiance of almost every line of that paragraph, this government, even assuming it is right on the question of jurisdiction- proposes to hand over one of our international water-powers to private parties for their own private gain. Surely some weight should be attached to that report. Admitting that the jurisdiction is here, is it wise or just, in the interests of the people of this country, to pass this Bill? If we expect our neighbours to live up to the terms of this arrangement, it is only just to all concerned that this government should not commit breaches of it. The protest of the premier of Ontario is very explicit. It is to the effect that there should be no entering upon the public land of the province. It states that the Ontario government has a policy with regard to this particular Nipigon river, that it has reserved, in some places one and in some places two, chains along both banks its entire length, but that power cannot be exercised if this company be given the right to place its works across the public domain of that province. What we ask is that nothing should be done, but that this Bill should be relegated to the proper tribunal, which is the province of Ontario:. As regards the right hon. gentleman's statement about the necessity of obtaining legislation from the State of Minnesota, short of treaty obligations- and I assume the right hon. gentleman has in his mind the recent treaty regarding international waterways-there is no necessity to go to the State of Minnesota or United States authorities of any kind to create works on this side of the river so long as they do not interfere with the extent of water flowing through it. When the Niagara river was exploited in the

early nineties by the Ontario government, which was done under the authority of the province of Ontario, they did not necessarily go to the State of New York, but used the waters on the Canadian side. In like manner, if this company should obtain the charter it asks, it will be able, unless it contravenes the provisions of a treaty which we have not the opportunity of discussing in this House, to utilize these waters and be under no necessity to go to the State of Minnesota for legislation.
They can do what the earlier Ontario companies did on the Canadian side of the riveT at Niagara Palls. There are two main questions involved here. The first is that the province of Ontario, which has the rights in this matter, has been given an opportunity of expressing its views; those views have been expressed, and I submit they should be listened to by this House. In the second place, the province of Ontario is the only province that is interested, and this government should not, in open defiance of the articles it has subscribed to in the conservation conference and of public opinion, give this power to these private parties.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have only a word to add to what I said the other day. I appreciate what the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) say; about there being a jursdiction in the Dominion of Canada in international waters. But I submit- and I am confirmed in my opinion since I stated it the other day-that this jurisdiction is a limited one. The question now before us does not invoke that jurisdiction.. So far as the plea that this is a navigable stream is concerned, it is not necessary to come to this House. I understand the Prime Minister does not dissent from that. His point is that this is an international river, and, therefore, there is jurisdiction in this parliament. I admit that jurisdiction, with the limit I have stated, but I contend that it must be used sensibly and properly for the purposes for which the Dominion needs to exercise that jurisdiction internationally. A mere matter of commerce, the establishment of a corporation, is not an international matter per se. It= works, of course, may become international or may not. But merely because that company is to be instituted on the shores, or even over the waters up to the boundary line, of an international stream does not call for the interference of the Dominion. Only as you bring in some attributes of a really international character is there any need to assert this jurisdiction relating to international affairs. It is said here that the state of Minnesota can give all the jurisdiction on the other side. In the same v ay the province could give it on our side. The 3tate and the province own the land up to the international boundary


Mr.  A. C. MACDONELL .@: which, I assume in this case, runs along the centre of the stream. I do not know whether that point is conceded, but I do not see how it can be denied. As we are seeking to incorporate a company that the province could incorporate; we are interfering with provincial rights. So, while there is undoubtedly a jurisdiction in the Dominion parliament

and I want to be quite clear about that in view of what the Prime Minister has said-it is a jurisdiction requiring to be exercised only for international purposes, and is not intended to exclude the jurisdiction of the province as owners of the land. There is nothing asked for in this charter that the province of Ontario cannot grant. I speak from local knowledge of one living near the Niagara river and knowing of the operations of the Canadian Niagara Power Company which is doing all that this Bill proposes to authorize this company to do, and carrying on a successful business wholly under provincial charter. It seems to me we ought not to interfere. In full view of the reasons given by the promoters of this Bill, or suggested by the Prime Minister, I am confirmed in my opinion that my duty is to vote against the preamble.


Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE.: There are two objections to this Bill, even admitting that the Dominion has jurisdiction. The first is that we are alienating a valuable public asset to a private company in perpetuity without providing for any compensation. The second is that, as I understand the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Conmee), he wishes to construct a dam across a navigable stream and so to impede navigation. For these reasons I purpose voting against the preamble of the Bill. I think also that the administration should give due weight and grave consideration to the communication received from the province of Ontario. I think the province of Ontario has a broad, comprehensive policy in connection with the conservation of natural resources and the development of water-powers, and I do not think this parliament should interfere with the carrying out of that policy. Under the circumstances, I consider it my duty not to give a silent vote, but to place myself on record on this subject.
On section 8,


Haughton Lennox: What is the meaning of this phrase in paragraph (a) 'By any means of application?'


James Conmee: It means that they may operate their mills by cable or electrical power or water or compressed air or any other means by which power can be applied. There may be new inventions that we know nothing of just now.


Haughton Lennox: They do not come in at the right place. If these words were in

connection with 'acquire, develop and improve,' if they were confined to operating water-powers, then ' by any means of application' would have some sense. But when they follow 'supply and sell water-power for any purpose' they are not in their proper place.


James Conmee: The hon. gentleman does not know what means of operation may be employed.


Mr.  A. C. MACDONELL .@: I do not think we should allow such ample power to export. Subsection (a) provides that the company may supply and sell electrical energy for use in any manner at any place in Canada or the United States. That means any mode of dealing with it at all, as to the amount, or terms, or otherwise. I do not think we should allow this company to deprive us of our natural heritage by giving them power to make an unlimited sale in the United States.


James Conmee: By an amendment, power to expropriate electricity is taken away except under the Electrical Expropriation Act.


Mr.  A. C. MACDONELL .@: I am aware that the electrical Exportation Act is intended to apply to the operation of this c;ompa(ny. But where you give express powers to do something, as you do here, you override an Act of general application. I do not think this general and unlimited power should be permitted to the company.


Haughton Lennox: These words were put in at a time when we were giving much larger powers than we propose to give now, and they are inconsistent with the limited power that is afterwards given under the amendments now proposed. The present . proposition is that this company shall be controlled by the Electricity and Fluid Expropriation Act. That defines the manner, and this is inconsistent with it.


James Conmee: What words would the hon. member strike out?


Haughton Lennox: 'Supply and sell the same for use in any manner at,' I would strike out the words ' in any manner.'


James Conmee: I would consent to striking out the words 'by any means of application.'


Mr.  A. C. MACDONELL .@: I would not like to see the committee get into a tangle. The hon. gentleman has drawn a Bill that, first of all, gives almost every power he could imagine, and then extends it through all the twenty odd sections. Then he proposes to cut this down by certain restricting words at the end. The result is that the framework of the sections of the Bill is not in accordance with the exceptions that
are afterwards contained in the Bill. I would suggest that any company which is under the Exportation of Electrical Fluid Act is entitled to export its fluid, or a certain part of it, to the United States under certain restrictions. That is quite sufficient, and then take out of subsection (a) these words ' and transmit the same by any means to, and supply and sell the same for use in any manner at, any place in Canada and the United States.'


James Conmee: I cannot agree to that, that is the essence of the Bill.'


Mr.  A. C. MACDONELL .@: The way the Bill stands now it gives the company unlimited power of exportation.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: I move that in subsection (a) of section 8, between the words ' and supply ' in the third line at the top of the page, there be inserted the words 'subject to provisions hereinafter contained.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr.  A. C. MACDONELL .@: The powers of the company under subsection (d) should be restricted. As the section is framed they cover the powers originally sought. The Nipigon should be excluded from the section.


William Pugsley: The Nipigon river is not excluded from the Bill, only the expropriation powers in reference to it are struck out.


Mr.  A. C. MACDONELL .@: You are giving powers of expropriation here and taking them away afterwards. The word 'acquire' is very comprehensive.


William Pugsley: That would be by purchase or lease.


James Conmee: Nothing there gives any unnecessary power.


William Pugsley: This would simply give power to acquire real estate without any power of expropriation.


Mr. GRAHAM.: So long as we cut out the expropriation powers with reference to the Nipigon I do not see that we have any right, if we are passing the Bill at all, to say to the company: 'If you wish to lease from a private individual or even from the Ontario government you cannot do it.' This company might possibly lease from the Ontario government and the HydroElectric Commission might distribute their power through the company, but if we cut out the Nipigon they would not have power to lease even from the Ontario government. I think the danger would be if you put in the expropriation powers, but as I understand these powers do not apply to the Nipigon river.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: When we come to the expropriation powers on the Nipigon river we can emphasize that there.


Haughton Lennox: This clause has two provisions, first a general power to acquire lands, &e., and then, under this section, it is provided that the company may acquire and develop specific water-powers on these two rivers.


William Pugsley: That is a limitation.


Haughton Lennox: No. I think it is a general right. Is it intended that the company shall have power outside of these two rivers or on these rivers only?


George Perry Graham: On these two rivers only.


Haughton Lennox: Why not make it read: Acquire such lands, &c., as are necessary for the purpose of its undertakings or develop water-powers without providing that under this section.


George Perry Graham: Does not the word 'only' limit it?


Haughton Lennox: No, that means only at one place on each of these rivers.


William Pugsley: On the following rivers only.


James Conmee: That was to make it quite certain that they could not acquire any monopoly.


Haughton Lennox: It is to make it certain that they shall have only one water-power on each river. We might have some such words as: 'Acquire such lands, easements, privileges, water and water rights as are necessary for the purposes of its undertaking and develop water-powers on the following rivers, namely:	The Pigeon
river in the province of Ontario, &c., &c., to the end of the clause.


James Conmee: That clause was drawn by a very careful lawyer and it seems to me to be only a difference between lawyers as to what the wording should be.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: I would move to amend it as follows:
Provided that such powers may he exercised only on the Nipigon and Pigeon rivers.


William Pugsley: The section is, I think, better as it stands because it says: May acquire such lands, &c. They may want to acquire lands for their pole lines, wires, offices, buildings, &e., which would be away from these rivers altogether, and then this section provides that the water-powers can only be acquired on these two rivers and only at one place on each river. I doubt if language could be employed that would make it clearer than it is made Mr. GRAHAM.
by this section that they should have no power to acquire a right or water-power on any rivers except the Nipigon and Pigeon and as to those rivers that they can only acquire water-powers in one place on each river, but they can acquire land in other places for their various requirements.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKErt. I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Middlebro) unless I am saisfied that it is unimportant as no notice of it has been given.


Haughton Lennox: Or by consent.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I would largely judge of its importance by the willingness of the House to consent.


Mr.  A. C. MACDONELL .@: We might hold this clause until after we deal with the clauses conferring expropriation powers so that we may make them uniform.
On section 9,


Haughton Lennox: We have standard clauses that we insert in railway charters and the first part of clause 9 is in accordance with the usual form. But there are two other standard provisions which were in the Bill when first introduced, but which are omitted from the Bill as printed. One of these is that the telegraph and telephone tolls shall be approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners, and the other, that part 2 of the Telegraph Act shall apply to the telegraphic business of the company.


James Conmee: You will find that these two clauses are included in section 19.
On section 12,


Haughton Lennox: In one of these clauses the consent of the municipality is to be obtained by by-law, but in the case of the municipalities of Fort William and Port Arthur the company can only enter the limits of these cities upon obtaining a vote of the qualified electors. Why is a distinction made?


George Perry Graham: The usual clause provides that just the consent of the municipality shall be given by by-law which does not require a vote of the electors. There must be some special reason in the case of the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur.
On section 14,


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: This section gives the control of the rates that may be charged to the Board of Railway Commissioners. It is a very competent body, but its time is more than taken up in settling disputes 'concerning' railways. When this Bill was being considered in committee I suggested that control over the rates should be vested in the Hydro-Electric Commission which has expert knowledge in these matters and which would be very

competent to deal with them. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee) would consent to submit this matter to the approval of the Hydro-Electric Commission the Bill would not be nearly so objectionable.


George Perry Graham: We have not power to impose duties on a commission appointed by another body. But my hon. friend will remember that we have adopted, in an Act of parliament passed this session, the policy of handing over just such cases as those which arise in connection with Dominion water-powers, to the Railway Board.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Surely the minister does not contend that we could not nominate the Hydro-Electric Commission as an arbitrator to fix the rates if they are willing to assume that duty. They would be only too glad to assume the duty, because it would be carrying out the general policy of the province.


Haughton Lennox: If we refer to the Board of Railway Commissioners a general and very necessary power of control, how will that harmonize with the provisions of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act?


George Perry Graham: The Minister of Justice is of opinion that there might be a clash' between section 14 and the provisions of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, which provides that the price to Canadian consumers shall be fixed by the Governor in Council.


James Conmee: I think the new section 15, amended in the last line, to provide that the rules and regulations shall be prescribed by the Board of Railway Commissioners instead of by the Governor in Council, would cure the difficulty.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why should not this company be placed in the same position as other companies exporting electric power? I do not think it is good legislation to have one company exporting power under a general Act and another company exporting power under a special Act. I think all companies exporting should be treated alike.


Haughton Lennox: I find that the general Act has general provisions regarding prices, &c., which are to be regulated by the Governor General in Council, so that if you make a special provision here, giving those over to the railway board, and then make a provision saying that the general Act shall apply, you will have a contradiction.


George Perry Graham: I may take some censure if there be any, for wanting to get this under the Board of Railway Commissioners. I want a uniform policy to govern all companies incorporated for the distribution of power.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Could not that be done by amending the general Act and not make special legislation for this company?


George Perry Graham: It is too late to amend the general Act now, and I do not want to place this company under the Governor in Council as regards rates. I want it to come under the Railway Board.


Robert Laird Borden: I agree with the Minister of Railways that the proper course
is to give the powers to the Board of Railway Commissioners. When the Act of 1907, the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, was under discussion, I strongly urged that this power should be given to that board instead of to the Governor in Council. In the interests of the public and of the members of the cabinet themselves, there are many reasons why the Governor in Council should not undertake duties of this kind. But I also agree with my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) that we should not have special legislation for one company but should bring them all under the one Act if possible.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Could we not remedy the difficulty by having a regulation or order in council passed by the Governor in Council, referring to the Board of Railway Commissioners the fixing of Tates? That board is the best tribunal to deal with this, but it would not be right to have one company compelled to go to that board and other companies placed under the Governor in Council for the same thing.


George Perry Graham: I am afraid we could not do that.


Mr.  A. C. MACDONELL .@: We are in this difficulty. In so far as control over the power in Canada is concerned, the rates to be charged, &c., that is subject to the Board of Railway Commissioners by this Bill. Then, by another provision, we apply to this company in its entirety the Electricity Fluid Exportation Act, and that puts the exportation of this fluid and all the details in the hands of the Governor in Council. So that you have the power on this side, subject to the Railway Commissioners and the power of exporting subject to the Governor in Council. It is desirable that the Fluid and Exportation Act should apply to this Bill. What will the Minister of Railways do? Give up his jurisdiction or obtain jurisdiction over the entire works covering both the exportation and the use for home consumption?


George Perry Graham: I agree with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition that, for the sake of uniformity and for other reasons, it is preferable to have the rates fixed by the Board of Railway Commissioners, and I thought that now would be a good time to begin.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Why not make this company subject to the Fluid Exportation Act but with the power vested in the board of commissioners instead of the Governor in Council?


Mr. CARVELL.: If my hon. friend will read chapter 16 of the statutes of 1907, he will see that it will he practically impossible to substitute the Railway Board for the Governor in Council all through the Act. Take the 10th section which nrovides for the' imposition of export duties; you do not want that power given to the Railway Board. The Railway Board does not make laws, but simply regulations governing the management of these utilities. A good many suggestions have been made, and I would like to make one myself which I think, would cover practically most of the others. If section 15 were amended by inserting at the beginning the words ' subject to the special provisions of this Act,' or words to that effect, 'the provisions of the Electrical Inspection Act and of the Electrical and Fluid Exportation Act shall apply.' That excepts the special provisions under section 14, while the other powers would remain with the board.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Are there not many matters of policy involved in that Act?


James Conmee: They would be excepted.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The questions of policy are in the Exportation Act; and these questions are left to the Governor in Council.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: At present, I am rather with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Car-vell) on that question. I think the question of prices and so on might be left with the board, but I am not in favour of giving them the power to make laws governing the country's export of power. Fundamental principles and large questions of policy should remain in this parliament and in the Governor in Council, but prices and details of administration in relation to export might be regulated by the board.


Haughton Lennox: I would suggest that we make it read, 'subject to the provisions contained in section 14.' Then, I would strike out the words 'at prices ' in the last part of the proposed amendment. That is, pass section 14 without amendment, and then take the amendment which the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) proposes, as given in the Votes and Proceedings, that 'the provisions of the Electricity Inspection Act, 1907, and of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act shall apply to the company and its undertakings,' but begin this with the words ' subject to the provisions of section 14,' and also strike out the words ' at prices ' in subsection 2 of this proposed amendment. This would leave important matters under the control of the Governor in Council.


George Perry Graham: 


James Conmee: I think that is pretty near the same as the proposal of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell). It would be necessary to strike out not only 'at prices' but also 'and in accordance with conditions,' because section 14 provides for both prices and conditions.


Haughton Lennox: Why should we have that clause in at all, if we put it under the Act?


James Conmee: Because it is a better protection for the public than a general clause or any clause of any Act that I know of.


Haughton Lennox: How does it differ?


James Conmee: It goes further than any other. It gives the fixing of prices and conditions of service, or the conditions on which the power shall be furnished for use. In that way, disputes are settled. It is a step far in advance of anything else I know of.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act of 1907 does not make any provision relating to prices, but only provides rules and regulations governing the exportation, and provides that the Governor in Council may establish a fee not exceeding $10 per horse-power. If we adopt the provisions of that Act here, the public would have no control over prices. But, by the amendment, the Board of Railway Commissioners has the right to regulate not only the exportation and the prices, but also the conditions of service. Therefore, protection is given to the public not mentioned in the Exportation Act, which must be a great advantage from the public standpoint.


Haughton Lennox: But we are putting prices in section 14 and we do not want them mentioned in section 15.	.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It would do no harm to strike out 'prices.'


Haughton Lennox: There is just this difference. The hon. member proposes to make it 'subject to the special provisions of this Act,' while I want the exceptions confined specifically to section 14.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My object in making it more general is that if there is anything in this Act which is different from the Exportation Act, surely, we ought not to make that a legal inconsistency. I want to exclude everything inconsistent. I do not say that there is anything outside of section 14, but it seems to me there is no harm in making it broad.


Haughton Lennox: It makes it necessary for us to scrutinize more carefully all the provisions of the Bill. We run the danger of including in the exemption something that we do not contemplate at all. I think that if we exclude the provisions of section 14,

we understand what we are doing. And, for my part, I would very much prefer it.


Mr.  A. C. MACDONELL .@: The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvel) will see that in the first place, the Exportation of Electricity Act is intended to be of general application, and ^ to apply to all companies not to any particular company. Then, when you take one company and give it special powers in ten or twenty sections of the statute, and wind up by saying that subject to the powers contained in this special Act the general Act shall apply, the effect is that the company entirely escapes the application of the general Act so far as these sections are concerned. So it is not right to say that subject to this Act the general Act should apply, because if we do that, you let out from the application all the provisions of the sections of this special statute.


George Perry Graham: Would not the special Act override the general Act?


Mr.  A. C. MACDONELL .@: That is the point I am making, it gets away from the application to the general Act. The general Act applies to all the sections of every other company of this nature; so by restricting it to section 14 you make the Act of general application to other sections of the Bill.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am inclined to think that if you adopt the proposition of the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) no difficulty would arise. My object in suggesting the broader clause was in case there might be some other inconsistency. But I am under the impression that if you accept the provisions of section 14 you would really make the Act consistent, and meet the requirements that I think all parties! are trying to arrive at.


Mr.  A. C. MACDONELL .@: It is desirable to keep all these companies under the general Ant; the minister will agree with that. Now if you give a company incorporation and powers by a special Act, and then at the tail end of the special Act say that the general Act should apply only where these sections do not apply the whole Act comes out from under the application of the general Act, and you are simply making plain the fact that the special Act you are now passing frees the company from the general Act all the way through.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The promoter of the Bill I think would be only too happy to' accept the provisions of the general Act in full, and have no other conditions applied to it. But when it came before this committee some weeks ago the committee objected to that, and the Prime Minister objected to it, he said it was giving this gentleman greater power than he thought this parliament should give him. Therefore they limited him by subjecting him to certain conditions which do not exist in the general Act. The general Act gives noi control to any person over the prices to be charged to people in Canada. The conditions imposed by the special Act give the Railway Board the right to regulate the price.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Those prices could be regulated under the general Act, because the Governor in Council could make regulations for that purpose.
On section 15,


Haughton Lennox: I move to insert the words 'subject to the provisions of section 14 of this Act,' and in subsection 2, to strike out the words 'at prices'.


James Conmee: That will take away the conflict I think.


George Perry Graham: That will leave the prices in the hands of the board.


Robert Laird Borden: It would have this result, that no tribunal whatever has the right to issue a license defining prices in respect of this company. I think the promoter of the Bill would be ready to accept that, because it would relieve him from a certain restriction. In section 14 there is no general provision about prices that shall be charged, and any person desiring to obtain power from the company must go to the Board of Railway Commissioners. But the ordinary company applying under the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act of 1907 must procure a license, and that license must define the prices. So if the word 'prices' were struck out as is proposed, it would seem to have this result, which I do not think my hon. friend from Rainy River desires. I think the best way would be to leave section 14 as it is, if that is desired, then to say further that the provisions of the Fluid Exportation Act shall also apply to the company subject to the following provision, namely: 'That the license provided for in said Act to be issued to the company by the Governor in Council, shall, in respect of this company, be issued by the Board of Railway Commissioners.' Does that fulfil the object the Minister of Railways has in mind?


George Perry Graham: I think it covers what I was trying to cover.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps this covers it, except that I do not think you ought to strike out the word ' prices.' If you are going to leave in sections 14 and 15 you overlap each other. It might produce a curious legislative result, and I believe we would not be prepared to predict in advance just what any court might decide to be the exact effect of two provisions of that kind. Certainly if you

strike the word ' prices ' out you will relieve this company from the obligation of taking out a license which defines the price and that it seems to me would not be desirable.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am inclined to think the hon. gentleman is rignc.


Haughton Lennox: I understood from statements of hon. gentlemen opposite, that there was nothing in this Bill as to the exportation, there is no regulation as to the price. By section 15 we incorporated the whole of this Exportation Act.


Mr. E. L. BOEDEN.: My point is this: Section 15 copies the provisions of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act of 1907. It was the object and scope of that Act that before you can export a dollars's worth of this power you must supply power to consumers in Canada at a price fixed by the license. I would not be in favour of removing that provision from this Act. It seems to me that a satisfactory section could be easily drawn, but confusion may result if we draft it in a rough and ready style here.


Haughton Lennox: If we incorporate the propositions of this Exportation Act by section 15 and stop there we would not be safe then?


Frederick William Borden: i am inclined to think that unless these two sections are to be thoroughly redrafted the object to be subserved would be best accomplished by leaving out subsection 2 here altogether and inserting at the commencement of section 15, which will then consist of only two lines, certain words so that it will read as follows:
Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, the provisions of the Electricity Inspection Act, 1907, and of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act shall apply to the company and its undertakings.
Leave out the rest of the section altogether, because it is contained in the Act of 1907.


James Conmee: There is no doubt about that. The words in the Act were put in, in order to make it more plain, but I do not think they are necessary.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is only one possible objection to be urged to that and I do wish to press it. It seemed to me to be the object of the committee to provide that the regulations as to the exportation of electricity should be in the hands of the Board of Eailway Commissioners, instead of the Governor in Council. If we let that go, the proposition of the leader of the opposition covers all the ground required.


Frederick William Borden: I think it would be better to deal with it by an amendment to the General Act.


Frederick William Borden: 


Mr. DEPUTY  SPEAKEE@: It is moved:
That section 15, as it appears in the Bill, be struck out and the following inserted:
15. Except as in this Act otherwise expressly provided, the provisions of the Electricity Inspection Act, 1907, and of the Electrictiy and Fluid Exportation Act shall apply to the company and its undertaking.


Mr.  A. C. MACDONELL .@: That section would legalize the exportation of power to the United States under section 8, without any control whatever over it. If you except from the operation of the general exportation Act the powers that are already given to the company to export as contained in prior clauses of this Bill, then the company has a free rein with regard to these exportation powers and they are not subject to any of the restrictions contained in the exportation Act. It does seem to me that by this section you would free the company from the operation of the general Act, and that the company could practically do as it pleases.


James Conmee: It would have to get a license and it would be subject to the conditions of this license.


Mr.  A. C. MACDONELL .@: It only has to get a license for powers that are not given it previously in the Act. The general Act does not apply with regard to any express powers that are given this company. This might as well be a blank piece of paper in so far as cubbing; or checking the company or subjecting it to regulations as regards the right to export to the United States under sub-section A of section 8.


Mr.   E L. BOEDEN@: With all deference to my hon. friend I would hardly take that view. For example, if you provide that the company shall have power to export electricity to the United States and follow that by a provision that except as herein otherwise expressly provided that power shall be subject to the provisions of the general Act, I would not say that the result referred to by my hon. friend would obtain. If there be the slightest doubt about it it could be corrected by inserting in section the words:
Subject to the provisions of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act.


James Conmee: There is no objection to that; that will clinch it sure.
On section 16,


Haughton Lennox: There is an amendment by the hon. member for Algoma requiring the company to commence within two years instead of three years.


James Conmee: Oh, you will not press that.


Haughton Lennox: I do not feel like pressing it very much because legislation has

to be obtained in the United States and I am willing to abide by the feeling of the committee on that point.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18,
The powers conferred upon the company by this Act shall not be exercisable upon the Nipigon river until the company has first submitted a plan showing such work to, and receive the consent and approval of the Governor in Council; and the company shall not proceed with any works upon the Pigeon river until it has submitted plans showing such works to and obtained the approval of the Waterways Commission.
James Conmee: I would suggest that the words 'upon the Nipigon river' be struck out. As the section reads the plans of the Nipigon river would have to have the assent of the Governor in Council while the plans on the Pigeon river would only require the assent of the Waterways commission. The desire of the Prime Minister as I understood him, is that both set of plans should have the consent of the Governor in Council, and on the Pigeon river they would have to get in addition the consent of the Waterways Commission.


Mr.  A. C. MACDONELL .@: I think the word ' also ' should be inserted so as to make it read with respect to the Pigeon river ' until it has also submitted the plans showing such works, &c.'


James Conmee: Put it in, it will do no harm.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
On section 19,
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not see why you should want to apply the whole of the Railway Act so far as it is not inconsistent with this Act. I think the better way is to specify the particular sections of the Railway Act you want to apply.


James Conmee: The same words occur in several Acts that have been in existence for years. The provisions of the Railway Act are well known, they have been the subject of litigation in the courts, and everybody understands them. The Hamilton and Erie Power Company, incorporated in 1895, had exactly the same powers. This clause is copied from that company's Act, and I am advised that the promoters of this Bill desire to conduct their business as a company under the provisions of the Railway Act.


Haughton Lennox: This is a section on which the Prime Minister intimated to us that he would have something to say as to the general principle of expropriation.


George Perry Graham: It will be necessary for the company to have certain powers of expropriation if it is going to be able to carry on its undertakings at all. Otherwise it might be held up at any time. The objection which I think the Prime Minister had was that under the original Bill it would have been possible for this company to expropriate the right to waterpower practically owned by the provincial government, which would -interfere with the hydro-electric power project of the province. He expressed his views very strongly along that line. The Bill as drawn now only gives the oompany the power of expropriation for the purposes of its undertaking, not the power to expropriate any water-power belonging to the province which the province desires to retain. If the company did not have that general power of expropriation, for the purposes of its transmission lines, for instance, some person might prevent it crossing the river at some point, and in that way destroy the entire project. I see no objection to giving the company the power of expropriation as outlined here. The objection on this point which I made on the original Bill has been fully covered by the amendment.


Mr.  A. C. MACDONELL .@: In view of the minister's statemnt that it is not desirable to give the company powers of expropriation with regard to Crown property, in the province, why not make it plain that the company shall not have the right to expropriate any water-powers belonging to the province of Ontario. I apprehend there will be no objection because, when the Bill was discussed before, the hon. gentleman who was promoting it said that the company had a title to the land on which they proposed to create their water-power on Pigeon river. That being so, it is not necessary for them to resort to expropriation, and to safeguard the rights of Ontario, I would suggest that there should be a clause prohibiting the company from expropriating any part of the public domain of that province.


James Conmee: Supposing this clause should read in this way:
The expropriation powers hereby conferred shall not be exercised by the company until the plans mentioned in section 18 shall have the approval hereinafter provided for, and with respect to lands belonging to the province of Ontario upon the Nipigon river, shall not be exercised except to the extent required for the purposes of its transmission lines only.
I do not see how any possible contention regarding water-powers could be raised under that provision. It must be remembered that the plans have to be approved by the Governor in Council, and one can hardly assume that any attempt to go be-

yond what is necessary for the transmission lines would receive such approval.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That would permit you to expropriate domain of the province of Ontario without the consent of that province. That may be the intention, but I would not be in favour of it.


George Perry Graham: Suppose this company came there just for the purpose of crossing the Nipigon river with their transmission lines. They ought to have the right to cross that river or they be held up altogether by the Ontario government refusing to let them put a pole there.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We cannot assume that any government is going to act improperly.


George Perry Graham: It is said they do sometimes.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think this parliament has any jurisdiction to give to a company which it is incorporating the power to expropriate land vested in the Crown on behalf of a province. Suppose we incorporated a company with power to expropriate land in the city of Toronto, could it acquire thereby the right to expropriate the parliamentary buildings belonging to the province of Ontario ? I would most strenuously contend that this parliament has absolutely no such jurisdiction. Further I would say that even if we possessed jurisdiction to grant such power the Bill as drafted does not confer it But if there were the slightest doubt, any Act we pass ought to contain an express disclaimer of any such intention. You say that the Ontario government might prevent this company from crossing the river. Well, if it should, the company has the right to appeal to the Ontario legislature for authority to expropriate for the purpose. That legislature might just as well pass a statute to enable a company incorporated by it to expropriate land belonging to the Dominion. The Crown in the right of any province is just as much the Crown as it is in the right of the Dominion. The Crown is sovereign in Ontario in respect of the property belonging to that province as it is in the Dominion in respect of Dominion property.


George Perry Graham: If the Railway Act did not allow that to be done in the case of railways, it could not be done in this case, under this clause. The provisions of the Railway Act, so far as expropriation is concerned, are made applicable in this Act; and if the Railway Act does not give power to expropriate the Crown lands of a province for railway purposes, this Act cannot give the power to this company to expropriate for its purposes.	.


James Conmee: 


Robert Laird Borden: A railway company, under our system, is incorporated for the* purpose of carrying out what is after all a. public function. This company is not precisely in the same category, as it does not exercise a public function. For the purpose of giving a railway company the powers necessary to its operation, it might be advisable to go a good deal further than you would be inclined to go for the purposes of a company such as this. If it be conceded that the Railway Act could noti give this company any power to expropriate land belonging to the provincial government, then provincial rights are in no danger under this Bill ; but it appears that the law officers of the Crown in the province of Ontario entertain a different opinion, and I am bound, as every one is, to pay respect to that opinion. Therefore if there be any doubt on the subject, we ought to make it perfectly clear that we are not undertaking to do that. Otherwise we may have the province of Ontario, through its legislature, attempting to expropriate, for the purposes of a private company, lands belonging to the Crown in the rights of the Dominion. Let the Minister of Railways understand that it is precisely the same Crown in both jurisdictions. The only difference is that the Crown, in, respect of the Dominion, acts on the ad-t vice of the Federal cabinet, and in respect [DOT] of provincial matters acts on the advice of a provincial cabinet, but it is the same Crown all over the Dominion. There is only one Crown in this empire and that Crown acts on the advice of responsible ministers in the various dominions and provinces. It is the same Crown throughout.	And it seems to me the
Crown cannot be bound by the provisions of a statute unless it is expressly named in that statute. I cannot see any doubt about it, but if there is any doubt, we ought to make it clear that the Crown is not to be affected in its territorial rights by the passing of this Act which we are passing at the instance of a private company.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have the most unbounded respect for the legal opinions of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). I think that every lawyer in the House will share that feeling. But it seems to me that if we followed his argument to its logical conclusion,. we should not be able to build any public works in Canada. He assumes that we have the right to expropriate the public domain of the province to build a railway


Robert Laird Borden: I did not say that.
I said there might be a distinction so far as a matter of policy is concerned if it was once conceded that we had the right.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then, if it is conceded we have the right to incorporate a company to build a railway, do I understand that-


Frederick William Borden: The hon. member (Mr. Carvell) is not stating just what I intended to convey. No doubt, it is my fault in not making myself clear. I said that if it were once conceded that this parliament has jurisdiction to expropriate the property of the Crown in the right of a province, then as a matter of policy, after the question of jurisdiction has been put to one side, different considerations would seem to apply to the case where you incorporate a company for a public function, that of transportation, and a case where you are incorporating a company for a purpose such as this.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I appreciate the distinction the hon. member draws. But I want to point out that practically every year this parliament passes laws giving telephone companies, telegraph companies, railway companies, the right to expropriate anybody's land, including the lands of the provinces of this Dominion.


Haughton Lennox: Where?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well, one illustration is the Transcontinental Eailway, we expressly give the Grand Trunk Pacific which is no more a corporation than this is-the right to expropriate the public domain of practically every province in Canada.


Haughton Lennox: I do not understand it 60.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But it did it. Now, under subsection 10 of section 92 of the British North America Act, the courts, I think, would have to hold that we have the right to give a company the power to expropriate the public domain of the province. As my hon. friend (Mr. E. L. Borden) who is very familiar with this, knows the subsection provides:
Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes:-
(a) Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs, and other works and undertakings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province.
These works are under control of the local legislature, but those that are of the excepted class come within the control of the Dominion parliament. I submit that the only logical and reasonable reading of that section would be that, for the purpose of a railway, for instance this parliament has jurisdiction to give expropriation powers even over the land of a province.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like to ask a question that I may be able to understand clearly the hon. member's position. Suppose you want to build a railway
across land in the county of Lincoln, Welland canal lands, held by the King in right of the Dominion


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This parliament has power to give a company that right.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the hon. member say that without special sanction the company would have the right to go on Dominion land, and, if not, how would they have the right to go on provincial land?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It seems to me you have only to put the proposition to answer it. If this parliament gives the power to expropriate land generally, it gives the power to expropriate our land as well as any other. Now, as to the proposition I was putting to the leader of the opposition (Mr. E. L. Borden), if I am right in my assumption that, under subsection 10 of section 92, the courts would say that we have the right to expropriate the public domain for the purposes of a railway, surely we would have the same right for the purposes of a power company. We act, at least, on the opinion of the Minister of Justice that this is coming within the provisions of the clause of subsection 10. It is a work that extends beyond the province of Ontario, not only on account of its transmission lines, but because in order to make the work of any value there must be a dam built across an international river, the work thus extending into the United States. If that be true, this parliament has the jurisdiction it has assumed, then, I submit under the British North America Act, we have the right to expropriate the land within the province of Ontario for the purposes of this undertaking.


Frederick William Borden: The hon. member (Mr. Carvell) has simply argued up to the premise from which I started, namely that this parliament of Canada has the right to incorporate this company and to authorize expropriation for its purposes. But I said that I did not think it had the power to authorize this company to expropriate the lands of the Crown. My hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) has made an argument, which, if correct, leads irresistibly to this conclusion: that the province, in respect to provincial undertakings, can expropriate lands of the Crown held in right of Canada. Therefore, the practical result would be that after this company had expropriated the lands of the Crown in right of Ontario for its purposes, the Ontario legislature could incorporate another company and give it the power to expropriate that land back again, provided that the company so incorporated were within the legislative jurisdiction of that province.


James Conmee: They would be bound to pay the compensation, would they not?


Frederick William Borden: Certainly, in both cases. But does not the hon. member see how absolutely absurd that would be? The Dominion company would begin further expropriation proceedings and expropriate the land back again; then the other company would go to the legislature and get power to expropriate it again. And so on ad infinitum. It is only necessary to mention the result to indicate how absurd it is that such a result could obtain under the British North America Act. The Crown is as much the Crown in respect of the property of Ontario as in respect of the property of the Dominion. Parliament has no -more power to expropriate the lands of the Crown in the province of Ontario than the legislature of Ontario has to expropriate the lands of the Dominion.


Mr. GBAHAM.: I do not know anything about this constitutional law, but I want to get this Bill through if we can. All we are doing under this Bill in relation to expropriation powers is that we give to this company the powers granted by the Eailway Act. If that Eailway Act does not give them power to expropriate Crown lands, then this company will not have power to expropriate Crown lands. I suggest that we give them the power we give the railway companies, and they can settle with the Crown when they want to expropriate the Crown's property.


Haughton Lennox: That would not be carrying out good faith. We went on with the sections on a certain understanding. When we were going into committee the Prime Minister said he was disposed to listen to the contention of the province. We have two propositions. One is supposing there was no question about the province at all, then my hon. friend representing Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) says we should not give the bald right to do anything that can arise under the Eailway Act, but that we should only insert such sections as are applicable and as we usually insert. In other word, when we incorporate provisions of the Eailway Act, for convenience we say that certain provisions of the Eailway Act shall apply. In this case we were proposing in effect that the whole Eailway Act should apply. Subsection 4 says:
Whenever in the Eailway Act the word land occurs, it shall include any privilege or easement required by the company for constructing or operating the works authorized by this Act, under, over or along any land, without the necessity of acquiring a title in fee simple.
That is very general. So far as general corporations are concerned, we should limit it to certain sections; we should limit the right of this company to certain defined sections, and in them we could include the


James Conmee: expropriation sections of the Eailway Act. Then as regards the province. As has been said by ^ the leader of the opposition, although it may be perfectly true that we have not power to expropriate lands belonging to a province, we should make it clear that we do not purport to give to this private company the right of eminent domain, the right over lands which the Crown holds in right of the province. I do not think the Minister of Eailways will advance the bald proposition that we ought simply to treat this as if any rights of the province did not come up. A certain provision has been suggested, I understand, because the Prime Minister did not want to allow them such large powers. This provision is therefore suggested as an amendment :
The expropriation powers hereby conferred upon the company shall not be exercised by it until the plans mentioned in section 18 of this Act shall have received the approval therein provided for; and with respect to any lands upon the Nipigon river shall not be exercised except as to such lands as may be required for the purpose of its transmission lines.
In calling the Prime Minister's attention to this to-night he was disposed to modify that language, or to provide in some way that the rights of the province should be respected. I urge that we should frame the last part of that subsection 5 in such a way as to make it clear that we do not mean to authorize this company to expropriate any land belonging to the Crown in right of the province. That would be carrying out what my leader suggested a few moments ago, that although it is probable that upon a conflict of jurisdiction in a court of law it would be held that they did not possess the power to expropriate the lands of a province, yet it would be unseemly, and it would be unfortunate if we should attempt to give a private individual a right to expropriate those lands. Therefore I hope the Prime Minister will say that he desires that we shall word this clause in such a way as that it shall be clear that we are not to grant to this private company the right, or the seeming right to expropriate any lands of the province.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like to point out what will happen if we apply all the sections of this Eailway Act. Section 172 deals with this matter:
No company shall use or take possession of any land without the consent of the Governor in Council.
They would not have any expropriation right at all if it was not for the Eailway Act. We are creating a Dominion work here, we are saying in this charter that they
may take possession of, use or occupy, any

lands vested in the Crown if they get consent of the Governor in Council. There is no doubt the leader of the opposition is right in saying that the Crown is the province, for the province owns the land. But this Act savs that they can do it with the consent of the Governor in Council. I am pointing out that they should not be allowed to take provincial lands with the consent of the Governor in Council because that is a clear usurpation of provincial property.


George Perry Graham: Does not that refer to federal jurisdiction, and do not Crown lands there mean Crown lands under the Dominion, and not under the provincial authority?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not think you can say that. Because there is only one Crown, it is all the same Crown, and one cabinet advises it if they are Dominion lands, and the other cabinet advises it if they are provincial lands. If this is to apply to provincial lands, see what will happen:	Money will be
held or obtained by the federal government, notwithstanding that the province is the people that should have the money. So it is clear that if incorporating all the clauses of the Railway Act we ought certainly to put in some exception such as has been indicated by the hon. member for Simcoe, saying that it is not to apply to lands held by the province in right of the Crown.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would suggest, with all due deference, that we are not discussing at this moment the real point at issue. It is not a question so much of jurisdiction as to the powers which are invested in the Dominion or in the province, although upon this point I have views which differ materially from those expressed a moment ago by the leader of the opposition. We undoubtedly have the power of incorporating companies to carry on certain enterprises, public works amongst others, and we do that every day and every year. We charter railway companies, you cannot build a railway without expropriating land, and if it happens to be public land I see no reason why the Act should not apply just as well. There is perhaps a little more sacredness in land of the Crown than in land of the private owner, but so far as expropriation is concerned, the land of the poorest man is just as valuable and as sacred as that of the Crown. Yet we take the power every day to expropriate the land of the poor man, and if, in order to build a railway, you have to expropriate the land of the Crown held in right of the province, I think that the supreme reason must pre-
190}
vail and you must have the power to expropriate that land in order to construct the railway through it.
But that is not the point'at issue according to my view. I stated a few days ago that, so far as I was concerned, I thought we should remember that the government of Ontario has inaugurated a policy which seems to be acceptable to the people of that province, that they would reserve their water-powers to be dispose,^ of in a certain way. I stated to my hon. friend that we could not, consistently with what we owe to ourselves and to the feeling of the province of Ontario, interfere with that policy and that if by taking Crown land we were interfering with that policy we should not do so. I maintain the same position, I say to my hon. friend that we should not attempt to take Crown lands. That is the view entertained by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) also. The Bill does not contemplate and the minister said he was not in favour of any power being given under this Bill to expropriate the public land of the province of Ontario. So far so good. That is to say the province of Ontario will be at liberty to carry out its policy and nothing that we do here, should be any obstacle to the carrying out of that policy. But surely we do not interfere with that policy if we give to this company the power to plant poles here and there to carry wires over the property of the province of Ontario, the policy of the Ontario government can be maintained and carried out just the same. This view is entertained by the Minister of Railways and it seems to me absolutely consistent with what we owe to the province of Ontario; it does not interfere with the power vested in this company according to this Bill and I think it ought to be acceptable to my hon. friends on the other side.


James Conmee: That is all the Bill now provides for.


Haughton Lennox: I think that the exception contained in the Bill does not go the length the Prime Minister would have it go, and that the Minister of Railways does not see the harm in the section as it is drawn. I believe the minister wishes to carry out what the Prime Minister said. I have felt all through that the Prime Minister would indicate a reasonable policy in this matter. After his expression of opinion it is only a matter of detail. I understand the Prime Minister to indicate quite clearly that he does not propose to allow any private individual to expropriate water-powers which the province desires to develop, and that he does not propose that any individual should have the right to expropriate any lands belonging to or reserved by the pro-

vjnce. But the Prime Minister does indicate, as I understand it, that the company should be granted the right to plant poles on provincial land in order to transmit its power. I do not agree with him in that, although I am glad that we so far agree on the main features. I would be very glad if the Prime Minister would go a step further and say it should be left to the province to decide whether or not these poles should be planted on their property. I think he might depend on the province to exercise its rights reasonably. By adopting that course this House would be paying a not undue deference to the wishes of the provincial authorities.


George Perry Graham: The fear, as I understand it, is that there might be some expropriation powers lurking somewhere that would enable the company to take control of the Nipigon river. The promoter of the Bill has suggested this amendment:
The expropriation powers hereby conferred upon the company shall not be exercised by it until the plans mentioned in section 18 of this Act shall have received the approval therein provided for; and with respect to any lands upon the Nipigon river shall not be exercised except as to such lands as may be required for the erection of transmission lines only.
That provides against expropriating any-think like a water-power on the Nipigon river.


Haughton Lennox: No, I do not think so. We give them general power to expropriate water-powers except on the Nipigon river.
I would suggest, subject to further consideration :
And with respect to any lands upon the Nipigon river shall not be exercised except as to such lands as may be required for the purposes of its transmission lines-
Adding the word 'only' if you see fit. That is the same as the present clause. And then:
and shall not apply to any water-power upon the Nipigon river or to any lands owned by the province of Ontario.


James Conmee: That would be a little too wide. If it were confined to lands vested in the Crown on the Nipigon river that might not be objectionable. But the statement that was read by the member as to the chain reserve extending all along the Nipigon river is wrong. For the first ten miles there is no chain reserve because the land there was bought away back in the sixties or seventies. The chain reserve commences above Camp Alexander, at Cameron's fall there is a chain reserve but there are other water-powers on the river exactly in the same position as the water-power at Kenora on the Winnipeg river. The land has been owned for the past 20 or 40 years by private


Haughton Lennox: owners who acquired it before there was any chain reserve and this company may acquire water-power without touching any of the Crown lands. That is the case at the Nipigon river. There is a power there owned by the Nipigon Pulp and Paper Company and they claim they have the right to build a dam because they own the land on each side of the river to the centre. But the difficulty there met with was the bridge of the Canadian Pacific, because there was a great depth of quicksand; and the company moved away from there and proceeded to acquire another water-power. In view of the expression of the Prime Minister we are not asking for power by this Bill to take any lands on the river and adjoining the river for a waterpower.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think water-powers should be_ mentioned in this clause so as to make it clear that the company shall not have power to expropriate any waterpower.


George Perry Graham: We will make that clear.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. gentleman does not ask for the power to expropriate land or water-powers upon the Nipigon river but he does require the right to plant poles.


James Conmee: I do not want to be cut out of the right to acquire a water-power on the Nipigon river if it can be obtained without expropriation. The Ontario government have a chain reserve along the Nipigon river in certain sections, but they have what is known as a forest reserve which extends for several miles around the river, and I suppose hon. gentlemen do not mean that this reserve is to exclude this pole line from getting to the river.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We simply say you shall not expropriate water-powers on the Nipigon river, not that you shall not acquire them.


James Conmee: If that is the only meaning of the section there is no objection to it.


Haughton Lennox: The section as proposed will read as follows:
5. The expropriation powers hereby conferred upon the company shall not be exercised by it until the plans mentioned in section 18 of this Act shall have received the approval therein provided for, and with respect to lands upon the Nipigon river shall not be exercised except as to such lands as may be required for the purpose of its transmission lines only, and shall not apply to any waterpower upon the Nipigon river.


James Conmee: I do not think there i3 any great objection to that.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr.  A. C. MACDONELL .@: What about the Pigeon river?


George Perry Graham: My opinion as regards that was expressed by the Prime Minister. This is the only parliament which can give legislation with respect to that river, and we are protecting what are unmistakably the rights of the province in the Nipigon river.


Mr.  A. C. MACDONELL .@: You are enabling the promoters to expropriate powers on the Pigeon river without limitation.


George Perry Graham: They are confined to one point of development.


Mr.  A. C. MACDONELL .@: There is no location at that point.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The object of giving jurisdiction in the Pigeon river is because it is an international stream but you should have some provision as to what expropriation they will be allowed to do on the shores of that river.
On subsection 6,
5. The expropriation powers hereby conferred upon the company shall not be exercised by it until the plans mentioned in section 18 of this Act shall have received the approval therein provided for, and shall not be exercised as to any dams or storage now existing or any dams or other works for storage (or any storage) hereafter created by the Arrow river and Tributaries Slide and Boom Company previous to the construction of any works by this company by which the dams constructed by the Arrow river and Tributaries Slide and Boom Company might interfere.


James Conmee: That section is really not necessary. It was agreed to in the Bill of last year because the company in that Bill was asking for powers to create storage on the tributary streams of both these rivers for the purpose of utilizing their waters during the dry season. That was cut out of this Bill because it was thought that there might be some objections. The Arrow river and tributaries Slide and Boom Company referred to here is simply a lumber company which has some dams on the tributaries of the Pigeon river and is not affected by this Bill, but the clause is simply to make it clear that the company now being incorporated will not interfere with what this lumber company has done. Therefore, I would like it to remain in this Bill as a matter of good faith with this company.


Mr.  A. C. MACDONELL .@: Why not make it general and not simply in the interests of one company? Let all the words in that clause be struck out after the word 'created.'


James Conmee: I have no objection to that.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Would you not need the words ' previous to the construction of any works of this company? '


George Perry Graham: I think this will work it out to protect everybody.
The said expropriation powers should not be exercised as to any dams or storage noy existing, or any dams or storage hereafter created, previous to the construction of any works of this company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why should they be allowed to expropriate what others make after they have constructed their works?


George Perry Graham: We apply to all companies the provisions that were applied to this one company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, but why make the provision in relation to works hereafter to be constructed?


James Conmee: I have a set of words here which, I think, will meet the objection :
Or any dams or other works for storage, or any storage hereafter created by the Arrow River and Tributaries Slide and Boom Company, or any similar works by any other company or persons previous to the construction by the company of any works which might interfere with the dams so constructed.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The objection to that is that I do not see why you should name any company, but, if you do, there is no reason why you should be allowed to expropriate because they begin those words after yours are constructed.


Haughton Lennox: Why not take it down to the word ' create '? Leave out the qualification proposed by the Minister of Railways and Canals ' previous to the construction of any works of this company.'


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: I understand that this difficulty has arisen from the circumstance that the solicitor for the Arrow River and Tributaries Slide and Boom Company appeared before the committee and protected the interests of his own company-I suppose, not being concerned about any other interest. The clause was agreed upon as it appears in the printed Bill, but it was proposed by the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Con-mee) to substitute something else which has not been considered in committee, except in this Committee of the Whole, and has not been submitted to the solicitor for the Arrow River and Tributaries Company. In these circumstances, it would seem to me the safe course to adhere as closely as possible to the language which had been suggested by the solicitor, applying that language to all companies. I think the difficulty will be fully met if the clause is worded in this way:

The said expropriation powers shall not be exercised as to any dams or storage now existing, or any dams or other works for storage, or any storage hereafter created previous to the construction of any works by this company with which such dams might interfere.


James Conmee: I will accept that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The objection I see to that is that in a few years from now one of these companies could build works which you could expropriate, for, while you are oaying that they must not expropriate the works which have been constructed previous to the construction of the works of this present company, you are inferentially saying that they could expropriate works of any other companies that were constructed after the works of this company began.


James Conmee: Include the words 'ot hereafter constructed.'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would strike out the words 'previous to the construction.'


James Conmee: I have no objection to that.
On section 8, subsection 9,


Mr.  A. C. MACDONELL .@: Words were to be added to this clause to make it plain that the exportation of power to the United States is made subject to the Electricity Inspection Act.


Haughton Lennox: We were to add after the words 'United States'.
Subject to the provisions of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.


CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No 56) respecting the Canada Life Assurance Company.-Mr. A. H. Clarke.
On section 1,
George Eulas Foster: It is very late and I would urge that we should not proceed with this Bill to-night unless there is a positive understanding that we must do so.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am ready to stay on to render justice to this Bill which has stood so long.


George Eulas Foster: My proposal did not deny justice; I asked if it would not be wise to leave it until to-morrow.


Wilfrid Laurier: To-morrow morning? That is for the promoter of the Bill to say.


Mr. A. H. CLARKE.: I am content if the government will take it up to-morrow morning.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: 


George Eulas Foster: It is better for all of u3.


Alfred Henry Clarke: Let it he the first order of the morning.
Progress reported.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that Bills No. 34 and No. 35, be the first order of the day this morning.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.
George Eulas Foster: What will be the business after these two Bills?


Wilfrid Laurier: The Immigration Bill, the Bill respecting the harbour of Montreal and all the minor Bills. On Monday we will take the Civil Service Bill.


George Eulas Foster: Do you mean the resolution and the Bill founded on it?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The resolution in regard to the clasification of the House of Commons will come first. The Bill cannot be gone on with until the Senate is ready with their classification.


George Eulas Foster: How long is that going to last?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: You must ask the Senate about that.


George Eulas Foster: The government ought to be able to carry on its business. We have the reason now why the Bill has been delayed that the government is not able to make its Bill effective so far as the Senate is concerned.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The government is forwarding the business of the session as rapidly as possible.


George Eulas Foster: We might take the Postmaster General's Civil Service Bill and get through as many as we can. The Postmaster General is ready.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not see any objection to that just now.


Mr.  A. C. MACDONELL .@: Why not dispose of all the private Bills to-morrow morning.


Wilfrid Laurier: Monday is the regular day, but I have no objection to take them to-morrow or Monday.


George Perry Graham: We will clear them off
on Monday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 12.20 a.m. Saturday.
[Stage Direction]

Saturday, May 8, 1909.