1910-01-17

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called:
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the answer which I promised to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) last Thursday in connection with a paragraph which he read from a statement in the London 'Times,' purporting to have been made by Sir Wm. White. The answer is as follows:
With reference to the matter of the Halifax and Esquimalt naval yards, referred to by the hon. the leader of the Opposition yesterday, and with particular reference to the observations of Sir William White, published in the London ' Times ' of November 19 last, regarding the condition of these naval yards, the reply, so far as the Department of Militia and Defence is concerned, is as follows:^
Whatever action ha:s been taken with regard to the armament and works at Esquimalt, has been taken with the full cognizance and concurrence of the Imperial War Office and in furtherance of their policy at the time the fortress was taken over.
With respect to the information which Sir William White stated that he had received that the naval base at Halifax was in a similar condition to that at Esquimalt, the only remark which can be made is that the fortress at Halifax is believed to be in at least as efficient a condition at the present moment, both as regards armament and works, as it was when taken over from the imperial authorities.
So far as the Department of Marine and Fisheries is concerned, the following information has been received from that department:-
With regard to Esquimalt, the naval yard at that station is still under the imperial authorities. The machinery is lying idle, but well looked after. The same is to be said as regards the buildings. The station has, however, been reduced to two gun vessels and one survey ship.
With regard to Halifax, the machinery in the workshops is looked after, though the parts are not assembled for working.



MANITOBA FISHERY COMMISSION.

Mr. CAMPBELL.: I wish to ask the minister who is in charge of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, when the report of the fisheries commission that has been working in Manitoba is going to be brought down? It was promised by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that it would be brought down just as soon as printed. It was printed, I understand, eight or ten days ago, or perhaps earlier, and under those circumstances I would expect to have U brought down. I asked the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) the other day and he told me he would attend to it at the earliest possible moment. That was three or four days ago, and I would like to know if it has yet been attended to.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The report has been prepared, and I understand has been signed by two of the commissioners. It has been sent to the third commissioner, Mr. Metcalfe, to ascertain if he concurs in it, and if so, for his signature. As soon as the department is informed whether Mr. Metcalfe has signed the report or has signified his assent, the report will be 'brought down and communicated to my hon. friend.


Glenlyon Campbell: I would like to ask for further information. J I am afraid the acting minister is not up to date in regard to this question. I understand the commissioners' report has been printed and has been signed by the three commissioners. Why has it not been brought down?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, Mr. Speaker, the acting minister is absolutely up to date, although he is something of a novice in the office. The report has been printed, and printed as if the three commissioners had signed it, but it has been ascertained that the third commissioner has not yet signed it, and it has been sent to him to ascertain whether he concurs in it in its entirety, or whether he dissents in any particular. As soon as we have this information, the report will he brought down.


Glenlyon Campbell: May I again ask what is the harm in presenting that report as



printed and as presumably signed by the three commissioners? I would like to see it.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry to say that my hon. friend is not up to date. 11 is not the report until it has been signed.


Mr. BRADBURY.: I do not wish to discuss the matter, but I think the First Minister is labouring under a misapprehension. The report has been signed by three commissioners, there was a fourth commissioner, the present Mr. Justice Metcalfe, who investigated Lac du Bonnet, and he resigned. The report has been signed by the other man, Mr. Hugg, who was appointed in Mr. Metcalfe's place, and the report as printed is signed by the three commissioners: Mr. Hugg, Mr. Read and Professor Prince.


Wilfrid Laurier: The printed report is signed amongst others by Mr. Metcalfe supposing he would agree. It is understood he does not agree, and the report is held until it is ascertained whether he agrees or not.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Were there three commissioners or four?


Wilfrid Laurier: So far as I know there were three. If my hon. friend will come to my office to-morrow afternoon, I will be glad to show him the report.



ST. PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.

Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: Mr. Speaker, I desire to refer to a request made by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) last Thursday for information regarding a return that was laid on the table of the House. The reply is as follows:
An account was received on the 21st of October 1907, for $321.70 from Mr. Ernest Raynor for expenditure made by him in connection with the St. Peter's surrender. This account was forwarded to the Indian agent, Mr. J. 0. Lewis, who was informed that the department had no knowledge of the authority under which the expenditure was made and he was asked for a report thereon. The agent was further told that if he was unaware of the circumstances in connection with the expenditure, it would be well for him to submit the matter to His Honour Chief Justice Howells who had carried on certain preliminary negotiations with regard to the taking of the surrender and who might he able to inform him as to the authority, if any, under which the expenditure was made by Raynor. No report has, however, been received from Mr. Lewis in regard to this matter.


George Henry Bradbury: I wish to call the attention of the Minister of the Interior to the fact that the return brought down regarding St. Peter's reserve does not contain the instructions to Chief Justice Howell, nor does it contain his report. I wish Mr. CAMPBELL.
these documents to be laid on the table and also the advertisements in the newspapers regarding the sales of land, and which the minister, when in committee, promised he would have brought down.



SECOND READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 93) respecting the Vancouver and Coast-Kootenay Railway Company.- Mr. Smith (Nanaimo).


Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	What is the amount of work in repairs or new work to he done by carpenters on the Lachine canal under the supervision of Denis O'Brien?
2.	What is the amount for machinists?
3.	Will any moneys be paid for new lumber out of the $22,907.78 still left to Lachine canal
work?
4.	What is the total estimate for wages for carpenters, machinists, labourers and carters for the balance of the fiscal year, in detail?
5.	Has the department any knowledge of the treatment of the carpenters on the La-chine canal under the supervision of Denis O'Brien, and have any complaints been received by the department? If so, of what nature?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM:: 1.	It is impossible to give any definite figure. A few of the Lachine canal carpenters have been retained during the winter. They are engaged on one pair of lock gates and completing the gate lifter and will be kept on as long as the appropriation will allow, the work being performed by them, being less urgent, than some other work now being done.
2.	There is considerable work to be done by machinists, blacksmiths and assistants towards preparing gears for the electric operation of the valves of the supply, regulating and waste weirs, &c. These appliances must be installed while the canal is unwatered next April. It is not possible to state the amount of work to be done by these men, as should it be found necessary, in order to have the weirs equipped in time, to lay off the carpenters, other machinists would have to be employed.
3.	The balance of the appropriation for repairs on the 31st December, 1909, was $10,535.41, not $22,907.78, as stated in the question. No lumber or timber will be paid for out of this balance.
4.	Approximately as follows:
Carpenters	
$2,300	00Machine shop	
2,000	00Blacksmith's shop .. ..	600	00Carters	
800	00Labourers	
3,100	00

The balance, or $1,735.41, will be used in purchasing iron, steel and brass castings, bolts, nuts, tools, &c.
5.	The department has not received any complaints in regard to the treatment of carpenters on the Lachine canal under the supervision of Denis O'Brien.



REPRESENTATION OF NOVA SCOTIA.

Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	Have any representations been made by the government of Nova Scotia or any person on its behalf to this government, looking towards the securing of an amendment to the British North America Act, whereby the representation of the province of Nova Scotia in this House as at present, may be maintained by said province?
2.	If so, when were such representations made, and what action has been taken thereon?


Wilfrid Laurier: No written representations have been made, but the subject has been discussed between the Dominion and provincial ministers.



BAIT SUPPLY.

['Stand.\nOn motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.', 'Tuesday, January 18, 1910.']
Mr. JAMESON :: Have any complaints reached the Minister of Marine and Fisheries regarding the difficulty experienced by Canadian fishing vessels in obtaining a supply of bait in the Bay of Fundy, owing to the practical monopoly enjoyed by the American sardine packers in respect to the purchase of herring taken in weirs in waters contiguous to the county of Charlotte, New Brunswick? If so, what action does the minister intend to take to relieve the situation, and when will he act?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes; but inquiry did not reveal that there was any difficulty on the part of Canadian fishermen obtaining bait at the prices the fishermen were at the time receiving from sardine buyers.



Mr. FOSTER:: What has been paid for each edition of ' Farm Weeds,' published by the Department of Agriculture for preparation and printing, respectively, what number of each edition was published, by whom printed, and how was each edition distributed?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER:: First Edition.
Amount paid for preparation....? 116 95 Amount paid for printing	 26,770 49

Number published (English)	20,000
Number published (French)	5,000
Printed by Toronto Lithographing Company, (through King's Printer). Distribution was made free to public libraries, edu-63i
cational institutions and agricultural societies. Three copies being given to each member of the Senate and the House of Commons. Of course the amount for preparation is exclusive of the salaries of the permanent officers of the department who were engaged in the work. The cost of the work of these officers was not divided from their ordinary work.
Second Edition.
Not yet complete. 12,000 copies in English and 3,000 copies in French are being printed by Mortimer and Company, Ottawa, (through the King's Printer). Distribution to be made by the superintendent of stationery, in single copies at nominal price of $1.
Distribution free to public libraries, universities and colleges of agriculture. Three copies given or to be given to each member of the Senate and the House of Commons.
Amount paid for preparation....? 362 58 Amount paid for printing on account, 10,000 copies	 13,990 60
Total	$14,353 18


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister any figures as to the contract for printing the whole lot?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. I think it is printed by numbers, not a lump contract.


George Eulas Foster: This is only what is paid to date?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: The minister might find out what the whole cost is.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


LANDS ALONG LINE OF GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	What lands have been sold along the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway since the sales shown in sessional paper No. 69?
2.	To whom sold?
3.	At what prices?
4.	For what purposes?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: 1.	N.E. 21, 53, 7, W. 5; N.W. 21; S.E. 21;
S.W. 21; S.W. 27, 53, 8, W. 5; N.E. 27, 53, 9, W. 5; N.E. 2, 54, 16, W. 5; N.W. 2; S.E. 2;
S.W. 2; N.E. 32, 53, 16, W. 5; N.W. 32; S.E. 32; S.W. 32; N. 15, 53, 17, W. 5; N.W. 15; S.E. 15; S.W. 15; N.E. 16; N.W. 16; S.E. 16; S.W. 16; S.E. 21, 53, 17, W. 5; S.E. 22; S.W. 22.
2.	The Grand Trunk Pacific Town and Development Company.
3.	These Crown lands were sold at $3 per acre, the government, in addition, to receive one-fourth of the net proceeds of the sales,

rentals or other dispositions of all lands comprised within such lands.
The complete schedule of such lands is attached herewith. See answer No. 1.
4.	For townsite purposes.


DEEDGE ' INDUSTRY.'
Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	When was the tug ' Industry ' reported as ready for work in 1900?
2.	What was the total cost to date, including scow repairs and scow purchase?
3.	When did she commence work, and where?
4.	What has she been doing since, and where is she now?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY.: I think the hon. gentleman means the dredge ' Industry '.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, but she has had a hard tug to get along.


William Pugsley: 1 and 3. The dredge was ready and commenced work at Toronto on 7th June, 1909.
2.	$223,990.84.
4. Worked at Toronto from 7th June to 26th June, at Port Burwell from 26th July to 6th October, and from 11th October to 'end of season at Port Stanley, where she is at present.


CANADIAN COINAGE.
Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	What is the amount of Canada's copper, silver, and gold coinage, respectively, for each of the last ten years, and the cost and profit of each year's coinage, counting the interest and depreciation of the cost of the Canadian Mint at 6 per cent, and the cost of maintenance and staff for the years during which it has been in operation?
2.	How much United States silver, and at what cost, has been deported each year, and what is the estimated amount of United States silver current in Canada from year to year ?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING.: As this question covers a period of ten years the answer could more conveniently be given by way of a return and if the hon. gentleman will make a motion I will expedite the bringing down of the information.


George Eulas Foster: I make the motion.


PORT COLBORNE.
Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	What is the total amount spent to date on the Port Colborne works by the Department of Railways and Canals and the Public Works Department, respectively, and are any further sums necessary to complete?
2.	What are the main improvements made and the cost of each?
3.	What was the cost of elevator and the equipment of the same, respectively, and what its capacity?


Mr. OLIVER.: 4.	When was the elevator first used?
5.	How much grain was handled there in 190S and 1909, respectively, and what is the rate per bushel for transfer?
6.	What was the cost of operating the equipment in 1909, calendar year?
7.	What was the total revenue received in 1908 and 1909, respectively, from all sources?


William Pugsley: For the Department of Public Works:
1.	(a) $905,047.82. (b) The works, as they stand at present, are complete; but, eventually, the superstructure of the inner portion of the western breakwater, which was built of wood, will require to be renewed in concrete at an estimated cost of $250,000. Representations have been made by the Department of Railways and Canals as to the advisability of constructing a spur from the western breakwater to the extremity of the Welland canal, which would cost in the neighbourhood of $350,000; the matter is under consideration.
2.	Construction of breakwaters, $905,057.82.
3.	4, 5, 6 and 7. To be answered by the Department of Railways and Canals.


Mr. GRAHAM:: 
COST OF SURVEYS, WELLAND CANAL.
George Eulas Foster: Wliat amount has been spent in surveys to ascertain the most desirable route for the possible new or enlargement of the old Wei-

land canal, and are these surveys completed? If not, what amount is estimated to complete?


George Perry Graham: (a)	. About twenty thousand dollars have been spent in surveys to ascertain the most desirable route for the possible new, or enlargement of the old Welland canal.
(b)	. These surveys are not completed. It is estimated that twenty-five thousand dollars will be required to complete them.


EXPENSES RE QUEBEC BRIDGE.
George Eulas Foster: What has been the cost for engineering, examination, reports, preparation of plans and specifications incurred, since August 29, 1907, in connection with the Quebec bridge?


George Perry Graham: (a)	. The total cost of the commission in connection with the inquiry into the collapse of the Quebec bridge was $31,765.44.
(b)	. The total cost to December 31, 1909, of the board of engineers in preparation of plans, etc., was $123,469.03.


WHARF AT CANNING.
[Stage Direction]
6.	A subsidized steamer owned by the Minas Basin Steamship Company runs regularly to St. John, New Brunswick, and Minas Basin ports. Large vessels load potatoes, for the West Indies; apples and other products are loaded for various ports and return cargoes received.

Mr. BOYCE:: 1.	Is the Kensington wharf, near Desbarats,
West Algoma, the property of the government of Canada? If so, when was it acquired, how much was paid for it, and from whom was it purchased?	.
2.	How much land was conveyed with the wharf to the government?
3.	If the- wharf was not purchased by the government, is there any contract in writing between the owner thereof and the government with regard to the use of the same?


William Pugsley: 1 and 2. No.
3.	No.


LOBSTER FISHERIES, DIGBY COUNTY.
Mr. TAYLOR:: 1.	Has the government built a wharf at Canning? If so, when was it finished, and what is the total cost?
2.	Has a wharfinger been appointed therefor? If so, when and at what salary?
3.	Have any tolls been collected thereon? If so, to what amount each year?
4.	Is there a building upon this wharf? If so, by whom erected and at what cost ?
5.	Is there a public road to this wharf?
6.	What vessels touch regularly at this wharf, and how often during the year?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1. (a) Yes, a wharf is being built affording accommodation for railway as well as general traffic on the Habitant river; total length, including railway and highway approaches along the river bank, about 900 feet; the sum of $2,000 being still required to complete work now under construction. (b) Total cost, $33,867.33. The site was contributed by the riparian owners free of charge.
2 and 3. No. When the work is finished and the spur line of the Dominion Atlantic railway installed thereon, a wharfinger will be required.	_
i. Yes, a small temporary warehouse built by the Minas Basin Steamship Company at an approximate cost of $100.
5. Yes. Three public roads and an open private way connect this wharf with Main street, and another public road connects it with the settlements to the southward. Besides this, the Dominion Atlantic railway has undertaken to build a spur line or railway from its line to and along the water front of the wharf.


Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	How many lobster cannery licenses for
Digby county were issued during 1909, and of these which were renewals?	_
2.	To whom were same issued, and what is the address of each licensee?
3.	How many canneries were operated under said licenses?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	All renewals.
2.	A. Boutilier & Company, Centreville; E. W. Morehouse, Sandy Cove; L. H. Outhouse, Tiverton; A. F. Saulnier, Meteghan river; Moses Terrio, Meteghan; Ellis Bros, Cape St. Mary's; J. W. Comeau, Comeau-ville.
3.	Six.


APPLICATIONS FOR NAVAL SERVICE.
Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	How many applications have been received from persons desiring to serve on the proposed Canadian navy ?
2.	For what stations were applications so
made?	.
3.	How many applications have been received for each of such stations?
i. Upon whose recommendation and by what system will any such appointment be made?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1. 117.
2 and 3. These applications were for general service.	_
4.	Appointments will be according to regulations to be drawn up as provided by the Naval Bill.


INSTRUCTIONS OF CADETS ON ' CANADIAN BOATS.
Clarence Jameson: ?[DOT] Are there at present any naval cadets or midshipmen receiving instriictions on any Canadian government vessel?
2.	If so, upon what vessel or vessels is instruction so given, and since when?
3.	By whom is instruction given, what is the ordinary station of the instruction on the vessel, and is any extra allowance made in respect to such services as instructor? If so, what allowance?
4.	Of what does the course of instruction consist?
5*. What are the names, ages, and places of residence of each cadet or midshipman, the date of joining, and by whose recommendation m each case were they shipped? .
6.	Have any examinations been held? If so, upon what dates, by whom, and what were the results in the case of each cadet?
7.	What scholastic standard, if any, is required of cadets when accepted as such?
8.	Is any pay allowed such cadets? If so, what is the rate of pay, and how much has been paid to each to date?
9.	For how many cadets or midshipmen was accommodation provided ivlien the system was initiated, what is the extent of the accommodation now, and upon what vessels?
10.	Was the public informed of the government s intention in this regard? If so, when and by what means?
11.	What has been the cost of this branch since its inception?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	' Canada ' since June 1908.
Instruction is given by the officers of
the ship in seamanship, and by the seaman's instructor in gunnery. From May to November, 1909, a tutor was paid $35 per month for instruction in mathematics, previously the parents paid for instruction in mathematics.
4.	Practical _ seamanship and ordinary scholastic subjects, with physical training and rifle drill.
5.	C. T. Beard, midshipman, 19, Ottawa, January, 1909; ,1. Barron, 16, Stratford, 0., June, 1908; P. W. Nelles, 17, St. Johns, Q., August, 1908; Victor Brodeur, 17, Ottawa October, 1909; H. T. Bate, 15, Ottawa, October, 1909. These appointments were made on the instruction of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
6.	The officer commanding marine service on each of his visits examined the cadets, and is satisfied as to their progress.
7.	None required.
8.	$15-$18 per month. Mr. Beard, midshipman, at $18 per month, $209.60; Mr. Barron, cadet, at $15 per month, $277.50; Mr. Neilles, cadet, at $15 per month, $240; Mr. Brodeur, cadet, at $15 per month, $24.50; Mr. Bate, cadet, at $15 per month, $32.42


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 9.	No special accommodation was provided when the system was instituted; the *accommodation now is for five cadets and is upon the ' Canada \
10.	No.
11.	Total cost for salaries, tuition and uniforms, $1,324.


NAVAL SERVICE.
Mr. MONK:: 1.	Has the government purchased any warships since the Imperial Defence Conference of 1909? If so, what warships have been so purchased, and from whom?
2.	What is the date and cost of construction of each of the said warships?
3.	Have they been struck off the effective list? If so, at what date?
4.	What are the details of construction, comprising tonnage, dimensions, &c., of said warships, and what is the armament of said warships?
5.	What is the price of purchase of said warships, and on what date and through whom was said purchase or purchases effected ?
6.	Is the government negotiating for further purchases of ships?
7.	Was it agreed at the conference of 1909, that the imperial defence plan adopted should only be carried out after its approval by the colonial parliament?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	No.
2,	3, 4 and 5. Answered by No. 1.
6.	Yes. As I stated the other day negotiations are now pending with the imperial government for the purchase of a vessel but these negotiations are subject to the approval of parliament.
7.	No.


COLD STORAGE PLANT AT BARRINGTON, N.S.
Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	Was the government assistance given towards the construction of a bait freezer or cold storage plant, at Barrington, N.S.? If so, what is the nature and capacity of the plant, when was it built, and at what cost?
2.	From whom was the application received, and by whom signed?
3.	What amount, if any, was paid toward construction, and upon whose recommendations ?
4.	What quantity of bait has been frozen and stored, by years, since built?
5.	What quantity of ice has been stored, by years, and to what use has it been put?
6.	Has any bonus been paid on bait? If so, what was the amount paid, the date of payment, and upon recommendation or certificate ?
7.	Is the plant owned or controlled by fishermen? If not by whom is it controlled?
8.	Has the operation of the plant proved satisfactory to the government?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	Preliminary assistance was given towards the establishment of a fishermen's bait freezer at Barrington. Passage, N.S. It was to have been of about fifty tons capacity. March, 1908.
2.	From the Barrington Passage Fishermen's Bait Association, through Mr. Peter MacFarlane, the outside officer of the department in charge of the establishment of such freezers. It was signed by William Duff, Wm. Acker, Gilbert E. Atkin, Elijah Ross, Floyd Ross, Joseph Ross, Moses Atkinson, Charles E. Ross, Samuel P.- Ross, Ernest Brown, Horatio Brownnen, Henry Ross, Alfred K. Ross, James J. Ross, Archie Scott, William R. Reid, Barkley S. Reid, WaTren Ross, Smith G. Penny, and George E. Kenny.
3.	The usual advance of $500 was made to the association, on the recommendation of Mr. Peter MacFarlane.
4.	The freezer was never completed..
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	No.
7.	The provisional directors of the association are William Duff, William C. Acker, Gilbert E. Atkins, Smith G. Penny, and Charles E. Ross.
8.	Answered by No. 4.


NEWSPAPER POSTAGE TO UNITED STATES.
Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	Upon what class of newspapers or publications mailed out to the United States of America is postage charged and not charged, respectively?
2.	What number of newspapers, if any, mailed out to the United States of America is exempted from paying postage, and upon what number is postage charged?
3.	When was postage first charged on newspapers going to the United States of America?
4.	What discrimination has since been made, if any, as to the class to be charged, when did it become operative, and why was it made?
5.	What amount has been paid yearly as postage on daily newspapers and other than daily newspapers, respectively? _
6.	What reduction in the circulation in the United States of America of the class of newspapers on which postage is charged, his followed the imposition of such postage?


Hon. R. LEMIEUX:: 1 and 2. Postage is charged on all classes of newspapers and periodicals addressed to the United States.
3.	In the year 1783.
4.	No discrimination.
5.	No separate account of postage collected on papers addressed to the United States is kept at the Post Office Department. The rates applicable to such papers being the same as those charged on some other classes of mail matter, it would be impossible to make any separation at this date.
6. This department has no statistics re-.tive to the matter for the reasons given in answer to No. 5.


MESSRS. SULLIVAN AND LANGDON.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	How much money has been paid by this government from 1896 to the present time to the firm of Sullivan & Langdon, contractors, of Kingston, or to Mr. Sullivan, contractor, Kingston?
2.	What public buildings or other public works have been let by contract to either of the above firms since 1896, what was the contract price in each case, and what was the total amount paid to the said contractors in each case?
3.	What was the total cost of each building or public work in which either of the above mentioned firms was interested?


Mr. SPEAKER.: Stand as notice of
motion.


ELLIOT BROTHERS AND R. CARSON.
Mr. EDWARDS:: How much money has been paid by this government in each year from 1896 to 1909, both years included, to the firms of Elliot Broi., and of R. Carson, of Kingston, Ontario fir supplies furnished to, or services of any kind performed by the government


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Stand as notice of
motion.
TEULON BRANCH C.P.R., MANITOBA. Mr. BRADBURY:
1.	Has the government approved of the extension of the Teulon branch of the Canadian Pacific railway, Manitoba?
2.	If so, was such approval made contingent upon the company agreeing to extend the Winnipeg Beach branch northerly by way of Gimli to some point on or near the Icelandic river ?
3.	If such approval was so contingent, is it the intention of the government to insist oil the company extending this branch this yeai .


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	When the government approved ot the extension of the Teulon branch of the Canadian Pacific railway, it was made contingent, upon the company agreeing to extend the Victoria Beach railway, northerly by way of the village of Gimli. This agreement has been carried out. The above line is also subsidized for a further distance northerly of twenty- five miles from Gimli to Riverton.


WIRE FENCING, I.C.R.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILCOX f
1. Did the Department of Railways and Canals, or the purchasing agent of the Inter-
[Stage Direction]
colonial Railway at Ottawa, at any time during the year 1969 ask for tenders for any wire fencing ?
2.	If so, were any tenders received for such fencing, and from whom p
3.	What were the prices quoted by the said parties tendering for the different kinds of fencing ? ?
Mr. SPEAKER; motion for return.
Stand as notice of

Mr. TAYLOR:: Has the Department of Public Works purchased from one Mr. William Paul a gasoline boat? If so, what was the price paid, for what service is the gasoline boat required, on whose recommendation was the said boat purchased, who valued said boat, and who faxed the price?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$3,500.
3.	Required for towing purposes and general service in connection with the works of this department in the district of Montreal.
4.	On recommendation of Mr. James Howden, General Superintendent of Dredging, and Mr. L. J. Michaud, District Engineer, who examined and valued the boat and considered fair and reasonable the price asked by the owner.


J. B. KAINE-TUG ' WITHERBEE.'
Mr. TAYLOR:: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works purchased from one Mr. J. B. Kaine, a tug, the G. J. Witherbee ' ? If so, at what pi ice, for what service is the tug required, on whose recommendation was the said tug purchased, who fixed the value of said tug and when was it built?
2.	Was there any debt or mortgage on said tug when purchased from Mr. Kaine? If so to whom was the money paid?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	(a) Authority was given by order in council, December 30, 1909, for the purchase at $12,000, but no payment has yet been made, (b) Required to tend departmental dredges, (c) Purchase recommended by j r't t1?,63 Bowden, General Superintendent of Dredging, who examined and valued her, with Messrs. Samson and Duclos, government hull and boiler inspectors, (d) built m 1872.
2.	(a) Yes. (b) Payment not yet made. CHIEF JUSTICE DUBUC, MANITOBA.


Mr. A. HAGGART:: 
Mr. WILCOX.: 2.	What is the cause of the delay in filling
the vacancy?
3.	Have any representations been made to the government to the effect that the number of cases ready for trial is said to be increasing, that the present judges cannot overtake the arrears, and that the public and legal profession are suffering serious inconveniences ?
4.	Have any representations been made to the government that the former chief justice as the only judge of French origin on the Court of King's Bench of Appeal, and claims made that the vacancy on the Court of Kings Bench should be filled by appointing one of the French speaking people of that province ?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to recognize such claim in making the appointment?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH:: ,
1. Chief Justice Dubuc was not retired from office, but resigned of his own motion. His resignation was received on November 15, 1909.
2.	The subject is one for careful consideration.
3.	No.
4.	Yes.
5.	In considering the appointment the principal object which the government will keep in view will be the importance in the public interest of securing for the position the best man available-giving due weight in doing so to the natural desire of all classes and languages and creeds to have adequate representation on the Bench in every part of Canada.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all accounts of George Tracy, of Selkirk, against Indians of St. Peter's reserve, Manitoba, now on file in the Department of Indian Affairs here, and of all correspondence of the department in relation thereto.-Mr. Bradbury.
1.	For a return showing the name, cost, date of construction, place of construction, and gross tonnage of each of the steam vessels now owned by the Dominion government.
2.	The names of those built in Canada.
3.	What ones thrown open to Canadian competition.
4.	In each case that was open to Canadian competition, the difference between the lowest Canadian tender and the price paid.
5.	In each case where a contract was made with a builder for the construction of any of said steam vessels, the month and day when each of said contracts were signed, and when each of said contracts called for delivery of vessels.
,ThV PHce eacb of the said steam vessels would have cost if the government in each case paid the current Canadian customs duty chargeable on vessels constructed outside of Canada.-Mr. Sinclair.
For a return showing-1. What amount has been annually expended by the govern-

ment since the year 1900 in connection with the Atlantic Fisheries of Canada, apart from sums spent in the fishery protection service and for bounty, in the respective provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec.
2.	The amount expended in each .of said provinces annually for fishery breeding purposes, dogfish reduction plants, bait freezers, cold storage and salaries of officials, respectively.
3.	What other general purposes in connection with the fisheries expenditures were made in such provinces within said period.- Mr. Jameson.
For a return showing the foreign exhibitions in jvhich Canada has taken part since July, 1896, the time and place where such was held, the expenditure thereon by the government of Canada, the persons, not common labourers, who had charge of the same or were employed thereat, the sums paid to such severally under the heads of (a) salary, (b) expenses, and the total cost to the country of each such exhibition; also the amounts received as revenue from the sale of articles or commodities, lumber, buildings and other materials, respectively. The whole statement to be made up in tabular form and the additions of money columns to be made.-Mr. Foster.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOSTER moved;
For a return showing the various commissions appointed for all purposes by the government since July, 1896, the person or persons composing the commission and the date of _ appointment, the purpose for which appointed, the date of completion of the work in each case, and the cost of each under the heads, (a) salary, (b) travelling expenses, and (c) printing report, if any; the word 'Commissions ' to include the missions of ministers, single or associated, going on public account to countries outside of Canada.
William Stevens Fielding: J am not sure that, in all cases, the expenses of ministers have been subdivided. However, the motion may go, and, as far as possible, we will bring down the return.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.  E. A.@: LANCASTER (Lincoln and
Niagara) moved:
That an humble address be presented to His Most Gracious Majesty the King, as follows:- Most Gracious Majesty :
We, your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Canada in parliament assembled, beg leave most respectfully to represent-
That in the year 1867 by Act of your imperial parliament commonly known as the British North America Act, the then existing provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were federally united and formed into one Dominion under the name of Canada, and the constitution of the legislative
authority of such Dominion provided for and the nature of its executive government declared, and since the said Act other provinces in British North America have also been federally united to the said Dominion and now form part thereof, with representation in this House of Commons, pursuant to the provisions providing therefor in the said British North America Act and amending, and other, Acts subsequently enacted;
That by the said British North America Act the executive government and authority of and over Canada is declared to continue and be vested in Your Majesty and Your Heirs and Successors, Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and Your Majesty is represented in Canada by a Governor General;
That by the said British North America Act there is also a council to aid and advise Your Majesty, styled the King's Privy Council for Canada, the members of which council are from time to time chosen and summoned by Your Majesty's said Governor General and may be from time to time removed by the said Governor General;
That by the said British North America Act the parliament of Canada consists of Your Majesty, an upper House styled the Senate and the House of Commons, but with powers not to exceed these at the passing of the said Act held and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland;
That by the said British North America Act it is also provided that Bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue or for imposing any tax or impost shall originate in the House of Commons and that no such Bill or vote, resolution or address for such appropriation or tax or impost shall be adopted or passed that has not been first recommended to that House by message of Your Majesty's said Governor General in the session in which such Bill, vote, resolution or address is proposed;
That by the said British North America Act it is also provided that where any Bill passed by the House of parliament is presented to Your Majesty's said Governor General for Your Majesty's assent, he shall declare according to his discretion but subject to the provisions of the said Act and to Your Majesty's instructions, either that he assents thereto in Your Majesty's name, or that he withholds Your Majesty's assent, or that he reserves the Bill for the signification of Your Majesty's pleasure, and that where he assents to a Bill in Your Majesty's name if Your Majesty in Council within two years after receipt thereof by the Secretary of State thinks fit to disallow the Act such disallowance shall annul the Act, and that a Bill reserved for the signification of Your Majesty s pleasure shall not have any force unless and until within two years from the day on which it was presented to Your Majesty s said Governor General for Your Majesty s assent he signifies to the Houses of parliament or by proclamation that he has received the assent of Your Majesty in Council.
That by the said British North America Act legislatures for the various provinces constituting the said Dominion of Canada are also established, each governed by a lieu-

tenant governor appointed by Your Majesty's said Governor General in Council for five years, and whose salaries are required to be fixed and provided by the parliament of the Dominion of Canada and such provincial legislatures are empowered exclusively to make laws in relation to a large number of matters and subjects of great importance, subject to disallowance by Your Majesty s said Governor General in Council within one year, but not in any way subject to consent also by the said Senate;
That in regard to all matters and subjects not within the said exclusive _ power of the said provincial legislatures it is provided by the said British North America Act, that all laws to be made by the said parliament of Canada must be consented to and passed by both the Senate and House of Commons, before being presented to Your Majesty s said Governor General for assent and the members constituting the said Senate are appointed for life and not subject to election or rejection by the people, and the members of the House of Commons are elected by the people every five years or at any less period at which Your Majesty's said Governor General may dissolve the parliament;
That during the forty years since the said British North America Act has been in force much dissatisfaction has been caused from time to time to Your Majesty's loyal subjects in Canada by the actions of the Senate in regard to matters dealt with by the House of Commons and the rejection of laws sought to be made by the people through their representatives in the House of Commons and passed by the House, and by reason of the heavy expense and burden of taxation placed upon the people to provide for the maintenance of that two-fold system of dealing with the making of laws by the Parliament of Canada;
That in view of the many other provisions heretofore referred to for guarding against and disallowing any ill-advised or improper legislation which might by any possibility pass the said House of Commons, and of the aforesaid dissatisfaction of the people and heavy burden of expense involved and of the great advance made in education by the whole people of Canada since the passing of the said British North America Act, this House is of the opinion that the Senate is no longer required or advisable for the properly carrying on of responsible government in Canada, or safeguarding of Your Majesty's full rights and prerogatives; and that the abolition of the said Senate would greatly conduce to the welfare of the Dominion of Canada and promote the interests of the British empire.
We therefore respectfully pray that the said British North America Act be so amended as to provide for the abolition of the said Senate.
He said: This motion Is in exactly the same language as one which I had the temerity to move at the last session of this parliament. I believe, judging by what has transpired in the meantime, that there is a stronger desire on the part of the country now that such a motion should pass Mr. LANCASTER.
than there was then. That is why I feel it my duty to renew the motion this session. As to the conduct of the motion at the last session of this House, I cannot say that it was satisfactory. An hon. member moved the adjournment of the debate at the hour of half .past nine in the evening under circumstances which, I thought, did not call for adjournment at that time. But the House was light and the members who were present did not seem to care for the continuance of the discussion at that time, and I did not demur to the debate being adjourned. It was then early in the session, and I supposed that the discussion could be resumed at a later date and the motion disposed of in some way. However, early as it was when the adjournment of the debate took place, the motion was never called on the order paper again, so was not dealt with by the House. I hope that a different action will be taken by the House this session. It is idle to say that the country is now satisfied with the conduct of the affairs with which this motion deals. The petition here proposed is concrete, and if acted upon it means something. The object is to bring about a great change, and a change, I admit, in the constitution. But it is a change that, I believe, is favoured by the vast majority of the people.
At the outset, let me call the attention of the House to the fact that this is not by any means a new agitation. For a couple of decades, at least, the people of this country have been finding fault with the way in which affairs are carried on so far as the second Chamber of this country is concerned. So great was this feeling sixteen years ago that Senate reform was made' a plank in the platform in one of the two great political parties just on the eve of a general election. Various and numerous suggestions have been made from time to time since then looking to a remedy, but no two advocates of change seem to agree on any particular plan. All agree that matters as they are, are not right and that the results are not well for the country. All agree that as things have been going on and are going on the actions of the second Chamber -or the first if you choose to call it so; the other Chamber-are not conducive to the welfare of this country. When, after two decades of agitation, all are agreed that the existing condition ought to be changed, but none agree as to what the change should be, what is the logical conclusion? The conclusion is that the obstruction, that part of the machine which none can make workable and which none can agree upon a plan for improving, should be removed. In 1896, as I pointed out last session, and as I now remind the House, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, Sir Richard Cartwright, upon the eve of a general election, speaking in Massey Hall, Toronto, used this language:

The Senate was a mill-stone around the neck of the Canadian people which he prayed that Providence would soon remove.
I presume the right hon. gentleman is still praying. But he is not praying in the form in which this House should pray, by a concrete motion to bring about a result. And, if I may say so without being flippant,
I do not think that the locality in which he is praying is quite consistent with his prayer, for he is now a member of the Chamber which he hoped Providence would abolish. But here was the statement of a gentleman who was making an appeal to the people as the result of which he hoped and expected-and his hope was realized- that he would have a seat in the cabinet councils of a governing party. And ever since then that gentleman has been in the cabinet of the party in power. Whether it was that the number of people who joined in that prayer was not sufficient, or whether it is that he wants help in regard to it, I know not. But, assuming him to have been sincere in 1896, if he were still a member of this Chamber, I cannot for the life of me see how he could help but second the motion to send this petition to the King, as the practical way to gain the result he wanted of removing this millstone from about the neck of the Canadian people. So, to begin with, I have the authority of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce who, in 1896, made the statement I have just referred to, but after he got into power he neglected absolutely to do anything to supplement his statement made previous to getting into power, in Massey Hall, Toronto. But we ought to do something, it is up to every member of parliament to do his duty in this respect, as in every other. If we find, in the light of the experience of forty-two years, that there was a mistake made by the fathers of confederation in constituting that second Chamber, it is our duty now to pass a resolution in the shape of a petition to the King asking him to have an Act passed in Great Britain by which our constitution would be amended and this evil removed.
Now, following upon that expression of opinion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, we find that several other members of both political parties in this country have from time to time agitated for some reform in regard to this matter, if not for the total abolition of the Senate, as some of them have suggested, 'but which has never been, until the last year, put in a concrete form in this House. I think this is the way to settle the question. If a majority of the people in this country, speaking through their representatives, are not in favour of abolition, they can say so, and we will know then what the people want done about it. If, on the other hand, the majority of the people in this country, speaking through their representatives in this House, are against the second Chamber, they can vote for this motion, knowing they are voting on a concrete resolution, and getting a concrete result; knowing that if the majority of them petition for it, the petition goes to Great Britain, and something will be done. Now, we had also from Ontario a very celebrated gentleman, a man highly respected, who has gone to his great reward, Sir Oliver Mowat. He spoke in favour of abolishing the Senate, although some hon. gentlemen may think that he merely wanted to reform it. Let me give the exact language he used in 1893:
We are agreed as to the necessity of a fundamental reform of the Sena.te,.if for any reason it must or should he retained.
Now, the latter part of Sir Oliver Mowat's statement is the strongest argument in the world for its abolition. He says we must have some fundamental rdform of it, if for any reason it must or should ibe retained, clearly admitting that in his opinion it was not necessary it should be retained. Now, in a matter of this kind which deals with the constitution of the country, we do not want to act hastily or thoughtlessly, 'but with the greatest care. And am I not right in saying to-day that, with the experience of forty years under our constitution, for at least one-half of that time there has been a steady agitation in the country for the abolition of the Senate as absolutely necessary for the welfare of this country? Am I not right then in saying that it is high time now that somebody should move in order that this House may be seized of the question in a concrete form, not by mere academic discussions of resolutions, but by some positive action that will secure a removal of the evil? In my opinion the only way to remove it is either by the_ abolition of the Senate entirely, or else its reform in some way. As I have said, no two of_ us can agree upon what would be a practical reform; therefore, the only thing that is left us to do is to go to the foot of the Throne in Great Britain and ask to have the constitution amended so that the Senate may be entirely abolished. Now, Sir, I ask this question: Would those who have since been called the fathers of confederation, who thought they knew what this country needed, and asked for a second Chamber, in the light of the information we have to-day, could thev have known what was likely to happen, would the fathers of confederation have done as they did and asked for a second Chamber? Did they not do it rather because, when drawing up the constitution, they were guided by the example of Great Britain, without realizing that her example might not fit this. Canada of ours? There was the House of Lords in England and they thought we should also have a second Cham-I ber in this country. But in the very constitu-

tion which they were then establishing, by other sections they took away the necessity for that House of Lords, or Senate, in this country as an obstacle to hasty legislation between the King and the people. By the constitution we are under, the British North America Act, every Bill that passes this House and passes the Senate to-day- and it would be the same if we had no Senate in this country under the amended constitution I am suggesting-such Bill, though it has passed both Houses of this parliament, can have no effect if the King in Council in Great Britain sees fit to disallow it within two years. So there would be no wrench in our constitution if that was done. This is provided for in our constitution by sections 55, 56 and 57 of the British North America Act, that, whether we have a Senate or have not, if there is any hasty legislation passed by this parliament, either by both Chambers, or by this House of Commons alone if the Senate were abolished, if that legislation involved any serious question of the rights of the people, those rights would not be interfered with to any extent worth speaking of, because those who felt aggrieved might go before the King in Great Britain and ask him to veto that legislation. So it is not true to say that our Senate stands in the place of the House of Lords in Great Britain; because the House of Lords in Great Britain is the only guard between the commoners and the King; and if in Great Britain a Bill is passed and becomes law, if tooth the Commons and the House of Lords assent to it, it seems to me that the King would have to abdicate unless he also gave his assent to that legislation. But in this country, if the Senate were removed, and the House of Commons alone passes legislation to which His Excellency the Governor General gives his sanction, he has only that limited power of attorney, so to speak, given him from Great Britain he does not stand in the place of the King, he only consents to that Bill for the King, and after he has consented, by these sections I have quoted, that legislation does not become operative in Canada if the home government for any reason sees fit to disallow it within two years. So you have the King represented here by the limited authority to the Governor General, who has not the absolute authority of the King in Great Britain. And so to-day we have two checks on any hasty legislation in this country, the one in the Senate _ of Canada, and after they have consented, the other authority in Great Britain composed of the King's cabinet in council. Therefore, when hon. gentlemen hesitate to vote for the total abolition of the Senate in Canada because they feel there should toe some institution interposed between wihat might toe radical legislation and finality, and when they oppose this motion for that reason they oppose it Mr. LANCASTER.
without a correct knowledge of the facts. If we did pass legislation which might be thought to be too radical, or to require to be submitted to a cooling process, or which interfered with rights which were not properly looked after in this House, if those rights were interfered with to any extent, an appeal could be taken to Great Britain and within two years that legislation would be amended, or disallowed, and that without any wrench to the constitution. I am not advocating that that should toe tried; I am simply stating what has been the constitution and the practice since 1867. There has ahvavs been that protection, and for that reason we do not need the Senate to do less effectively what can be done in the way that I have just indicated.
Let me speak for a minute as to the condition of the people of this country educationally as compared with that of 1867. I may say that with the comparatively low state of education that existed among the masses in 1867 as compared with that which exists now, there might have been some necessity of having learned, college-bred or educated people to control what might be done by some ignorant people who had been elected to parliament. But, what is the condition that we find to-day? Is there not a vast difference to-day? Is not the difference almost indescribable in regard to the state of education as between what it was in 1867 and what it is to-day? Have not the educated people of our country taken good care to see that men are not elected to this House unless they are fully competent to deal with public matters in all their different aspects? Let any hon. gentleman bring a Bill into this House to-morrow that is going to interfere with any corporation's rights on one side as against the rights of the ordinary common people on the other; you will have any number of gentlemen in this House ready to defend the rights of any corporation affected by legislation introduced here and to insist that the Bill must go to a select committee so that their rights may be dealt with and carefully protected. Are they not carefully protected in every piece of legislation that comes before this House. I am not saying that hon. gentlemen are not doing right in taking this course. It is their duty to do it. I would do it myself if some one else was not doing it. We do see to it that all interests, whether they be those of the poorest and humblest or those of the richest, most aristocratic and most powerful, as far as wealth can make them powerful, are fully protected by the legislation that comes before this House. I do not think that any cabinet would last for a year that did not, before they brought down government legislation, consider how it would affect different classes of people. So I say that in the beginning of the twentieth century there

is not the necessity that might perhaps at one time have existed for that protection in regard to what I have endeavoured to describe-the protection of capital, perhaps, as against labour, nor of the rich as against the poor, or of landed interests or proprietors as against casual newcomers who may be asking for some radical legislation to protect themselves or help them in some special and peculiar way. Thus the necessity for these things does not exist to-day with the House of Commons as at present constituted, and I believe that the people will take care, now, with the education that the masses have, to see that the House of Commons is constituted of gentlemen sufficiently educated and able to protect every interest that may be brought in question with regard to any legislation that is proposed. So much for that.
Now, let me say one word with regard to some of the suggestions that have been made other than by myself in sessions gone by. I listened to the discussion of this question, but I never took any part in it until last year. I have had the benefit of hon. gentlemen giving their own opinions, and I have endeavoured to form a correct opinion as to what was best in the interest of the country. Some people have suggested the appointment of senators by the provincial legislatures instead of as they are now appointed. It seems to me that can accomplish no good. That could not make things any better, but a great evil would exist that does not exist now. With the questions that are continually arising as to whether the province or the Dominion has authority to deal with certain matters these senators, appointed by the provinces, would feel it to be their duty to protect the provinces that appointed them, human nature being as it is. The provinces would be found clashing with the House of Commons when the House of Commons undertook to exercise its authority as a federal institution and their legislation would be annulled by a Senate coming from the provinces and which would therefore be provincial in regard to the source of their appointment, and it seems to me they would be guided by this in settling the question as to who they should protect. I never heard any strong argument in favour of appointment by the provincial legislatures. I never heard it suggested with any particularly good reason being given with it, and I never heard any hon. gentleman give any sound reason or his own opinion solidly and unequivocally in favour of such a change. I suggest that it would be an evil, for the reason I have stated, and it would not accomplish from a federal standpoint the object which its advocates have in view. We have the legislatures to deal with local matters, and from the federal standpoint the appointment of senators by the provincial legislatures would result in interference with federal legislation, for the reasons which I have given, and it would bring about no good as far as I can see. While I am speaking about provincial legislatures, perhaps I might point out that the greater number of matters that 'are dealt with in the shape of legislation in Canada are dealt with by the provincial legislatures, and that what the provincial legislatures do comes home to the ordinary man in his every-day life and affects him more directly than any of the things that we do in this House, important as they may be. Yet, notwithstanding this, no provincial legislature has ever found it necessary to have a Senate to see that it does not go wrong. The provincial legislatures of the great provinces of Ontario and Quebec have no second Chamber, no cooling basins, to save them from the results of passing too radical legislation. Gentlemen are elected to these Houses who take care to look after provincial interests and to protect everybody on fair terms in all legislation that is brought forward. If it has been found that there is no need for any second Chamber where such a multitude of matters is dealt with of such great importance to the ordinary man every day of his life and which affect him to a much greater extent than do the things that are dealt with in the federal arena, it is another good reason why we require no second Chamber in federal matters.


Robert Laird Borden: They have a second chamber in Quebec and Nova Scotia.


Mr. LANCASTER.: My hon. friend says that they have a second Chamber in Quebec and Nova Scotia. They had them in other provinces, but dropped them. That is the best answer to that. There was no earthquake, there was no army called out and there was no trouble in the country when they did drop them. It seemed that the people did not notice them. They had been so inactive that they were not noticed when they were dropped. Their dropping did not make any noise, it hurt nobody and things have gone along in these provinces ever since at least as well as if there were upper Chambers. I do think that the legislative councils in Nova Scotia and Quebec are not accomplishing very much or we would not have to be informed that they are actually in existence to-day. They are such nonentities that I had forgotten about them until I was reminded of the fact. At all events, the fact that the upper Chambers in the other provinces have fallen out of use without anyone noticing it is the very best argument that they were not much use when they existed. Two sessions ago there was a motion made by the present hon. deputy-speaker, in relation to the constitution of the Senate, and the Prime Minister, speak-

ing in that debate, said that he could not suggest any reform which would be wise, although I think we all agree that the conditions are not desirable as they at present exist. It was mentioned by the Prime Minister in that debate that if the Senate saw fit to throw out a Supply Bill passed by the House there was no remedy under the constitution and the country might be starved.


Wilfrid Laurier: That happens in England to-day.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, and that might happen in Canada and there would be no remedy. And yet we calmly go on here from year to year with that possibility staring us in the face. Now, I do not speak in any partisan spirit, because what I am going to say might apply in the case of any party which was in power for a number of years. But the right hon. gentleman may not be afraid to-day because there is a majority of his former political supporters in the Senate and from party loyalty they possibly would not reject a finance Bill of this government. But, if the Senate is of any use at all it is as an independent institution and were it really independent it could control the country against the will of the elected representatives of the people, a thing which I do not think was ever contemplated by those who framed the British North America Act. We claim to have responsible government in this country, but let us take a chain of circumstances which might possibly happen and let us see if we actually have responsible government. Suppose the government brings down a Bill to this House and a certain number of its supporters object to it and joining with the members of the opposition there is a majority which amends that Bill in a way which the government does not like. That Bill would go to the Senate and the Senate as at present constituted, having a majority of one political stripe, the Senate might amend that Bill against the wishes of the majority of the elected representatives of the people and in favour of the will of the government which appointed the Senators and this elected chamber would have to submit. We know that in practice the government is supported by those elected to support it in any measure it submits, but in theory the government is responsible to the House of Commons and they have to run the risk of proposing measures which may not meet with the approval of their supporters. But, with the Senate endorsing the action of the government, the government would remain in power in a case such as I have instanced when under all proper constitutional rules it should resign. Now, what has been done by the House of Lords in England may at any time be done by the Senate of Canada.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Indeed, the Canadian Senate has already thwarted the will of the Canadian House of Commons. For three years this House unanimously agreed upon a measure for the protection of people at railway level crossings. The influence of the corporations was not sufficient to prevent the House of Commons passing that measure, but through some influence, or in their judgment, or whatever you may call it, the Senate rejected that measure and last session such was the deadlock that the majority of the Commons felt finally obliged to accept the Bill in the mutilated form which the Senate forced it upon us. Speaking from a national point of view that was an evil. The fact was that thirty-five senators constituting a majority in the Senate were able to force their will on the twenty senators who were in the minority and on the two hundred and twenty-one members of the House of Commons combined. That is not right and it shows that the Senate is not serving a good purpose in this country. The ex-Secretary of State, Hon. Sir Richard Scott, moved in the Senate a resolution beginning:
That, in the opinion of the Senate the time has arrived for so amending the constitution of this branch of parliament, as to bring the mode of selection of senators more into harmony with public opinion.
Senator Scott was hardly out of the council chamber until in his capacity of senator he expressed the feeling that' the interests of the country required the adop tion of some means of bringing the constitution of the Senate into harmony with public opinion. This opinion of a prominent member of the Senate is another evidence that to-day, in the year in which we are now living as distinguished from the year 1867, gentlemen in that branch of the legislature believe that there is a need of bringing that Chamber more in harmony with public opinion. I do not know what suggestions Senator Scott made; I think he proposed something in the shape of an election, but I think it stands almost as! a self-evident proposition that the electing of senators would cause no better result. If they did not, when elected, impede the legislation of this House, they would not be necessary. If public opinion was expressed to them when they were elected in the same form as it was expressed to the members of this House from the smaller constituencies, and if they did impede the legislation of the members of the Commons elected from the smaller constituencies, they would be out of place and an obstruction and an ill to the country. So I cannot see that there would be any benefit in electing senators. You would have either two men to do one man's work or you would have one cham-

ber so constructed as to prevent the larger constituted body from acting according to public opinion. The suggestion to elect the senators seems to be nothing but an excuse for the retention of that Chamber.
The argument was advanced last vear that they were necessary to protect the minority. I ask when did they protect the minorities. I have never heard of their doing anything to protect the minorities in this country. We have heard discussions during the last 30 years, if not during the whole 40 years since confederation, about the rights of minorities being interfered with, but we have never heard of any occasion when the Senate went into the arena of politics or public life in any sense to protect the minorities. Some gentleman has said that they might be needed at some time because the smaller provinces, having a smaller number of members in this House, would not get justice as between different localities in Canada, and that the Senate might force the House of Commons to give these smaller provinces some greater rights. But the smaller province has also a smaller number of senators and, human nature being as it is, and the number of representatives of the smaller, the majority in the Senate would favour the same legislation as the House of Commons, and therefore the grievance would not be remedied.
Thus, it seems to me to be about almost idle to-day to ask for the retention of this body on the ground that the Senate will protect minorities. Minorities have called out for protection from time to time during the last 40 years, but I do not remember that the Senate itself ever interfered to protect any minority, nor do I think that they could or would do so for the reasons I have expressed. If the home government can, as I have pointed out, interfere in any large matter under our construction, in the case for instance of a small province being unjustly treated, surely His Majesty's government, a council composed of representatives of the Lords and of the Commons, would afford as effective a safeguard as any Senate that could be formed in Canada. So again, I am obliged to say that the Senate is unnecessary.
I wish to place on 'Hansard' a few newspaper quotations. Last year I placed upon 'Hansard' a quotation from the Toronto 'Star' of 1909. I shall again read a portion of it because I intend to make another quotation from that paper and the two are better read together. Shortly before I made my motion last year the Toronto 'Star' on February 4, said:
As the matter now stands the Senate is simply an addition to the patronage of the government. Patronage in the civil service we have learned to endure through custom, but surely it is unwise to extend the system
of patronage to the appointment of those who make the laws of the land. Responsible government means the responsibility of the government to parliament, but who can speak seriously of the responsibility of a government to a portion of parliament appointed by the government itself?
The plan laid before the Senate by the Hon. Sir R. W. Scott is good in so far as it proposes to substitute election for appointment. An elected Senate, dealing independently with the measures sent up by the House of Commons, including government measures, might occasionally serve a good purpose. It is doubtful whether such a body could work in harmony with a system which requires that the government of the day shall have a parliamentary majority for the support of its measures, but if it were found unworkable, it would probably be a half-way house on the road to abolition, which to many seems to be the logical solution of the- problem.
Since this matter was debated last session, when it had the benefit of what was said pro and con with regard to this motion, that same newspaper wrote another article, dated November 16, 1909. That was written just after this parliament was opened by His Excellency and when notice of this motion was given on the order paper. The Toronto ' Star ' then said:
Against the Senate we wish to register several objections. The least of these is that it is a feeble echo of the party in power in the Commons. When the Senate does nothing but ratify the will of the Commons, we see it at its best, for we are then having representative government. The will of the elected parliament is not being frustrated by another body, whose members are chosen for reasons the people know nothing about, and which no amount of study can enable them to understand. At such a time the Senate is only unnecessary, and nothing worse.
Yet we must qualify the statement, for in that case it is even worse than unnecessary and worse than being a profitless expense, because no member of parliament knows just how soon a vacancy in the Senate may occur, and it is not uncommon to find representatives of the people forfeiting their popularity at the polls confident of reaching that Upper Chamber where no poll is long enough to reach them.
At another time the Senate is not the feeble echo of the Commons. We submit that it is seen at its worst when it resists the will of the Commons, or undertakes to. originate legislation. In that case it weakens popular government, impedes, and frustrates it. Why should the people support an appointed House to resist and baffle the purposes of an elected one?
Thus we have from that newspaper its confirmed opinion, since the debate of last session-a newspaper not agreeing with me in party politics, but having a large circulation in Toronto and throughout Ontario, and therefore some pretension to voice public opinion. We have

also a large newspaper in Toronto called the ' Mail and Empire which spoke on this subject in a few words, but all the more effective than any long argument. On the 5th of the present month that newspaper said:
Canadians are being incited by several papers to indignation against the House of Lords as a political institution. Like other human works, the House of Lords is full of imperfections, but candour compels us to admit that it is both an abler and a more conscientious legislative body than the Senate of Canada or the Senate of the United States. In practice, also, it is more democratic than either of these Chambers.
Under all the circumstances, I shall not weary the House any longer. 'In the British North America Act we have protection, even without a Senate, for any class or province the need of protection for which is our only excuse for having any second Chamber. Such a Chamber cannot be independent owing to the _ fact that the party in power can appoint to it their own political supporters, and the senator who owes his appointment to his party loyalty and service cannot be expected to give an impartial vote on legislation introduced by that party. And the converse is true should the government which appointed him go out of office. Those senators who owe their appointments to a defeated government may be naturally expected to veto any legislation introduced in that body by the new government. Therefore, whichever way you look at it, the institution is no good as it stands today, and I am satisfied that such is the opinion of the vast majority of the people; and as no remedy is suggested satisfactory to any two persons and as all agree that the institution, as at present constituted, is worse than useless, we ought to do the only logical thing open to us as commoners and humbly petition His Gracious Majesty to remove that section from the British North America Act and let us get along without a Senate. Not that there is anything in the expense alone, but the expense of that body is a serious one. However, if it cost fifty times as much, and was serving a good purpose, I would not mind the expense, but it does cost the country about $300,000 a year, without taking into account other expenses, as to which there is dispute more or less, because they are interwoven with other legislation, such as printing, &c., which you cannot charge entirely to the Senate. But that body costs at least $300,000 a year. That money is needed for other purposes which would' better serve the people. It would go a long way to improve the postal service, it would go a long way towards the nationalization or improvement of the telephone or telegraph system, it would Mr. LANCASTER.
not be wasted if it were handed over to the Railway Commission for the purpose of contributing to the cost of protecting railway crossings, which the railways themselves make dangerous, and which is now put upon the municipalities. It would be much more profitably used in any of these ways than in keeping up a second Chamber. I do not think, in view of my extended remarks last session, and of the fact that I am addressing practically the same parliament, that I should trespass upon the time of the House, and will conclude by asking you, Mr. Speaker, to put my motion.


Mr. H. H. MILLER (South Grey).: Having been the first member of this House to place on the order paper such a resolution as we have been discussing to-day and having been the first to discuss it, I rise merely to say a few words. Having spoken on two former occasions at considerable length, I do not propose to occupy the attention of the House for more than two or three minutes. I was as I have said, the first member to introduce a resolution similar to the one now submitted. That was some few years ago, and I have not since then changed my mind on the question. In my opinion a very large number of persons in the Dominion would vote in favour of the abolition of the Senate. Some of them for reasons I could not at all agree with. I have met many who speak with derision of the Senate. I am not one of those, I have never seen any reason to speak in that way of the Senate or its members. I am glad to number among the senators a great many personal friends, and there are many in that body whom I regard as very able Canadian statesmen, whose opinion and experience entitle them to a great deal of respect.
Last session when this matter was being discussed, the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) said that we could find among the members of the Senate many men who would make most desirable directors on any financial board in Canada. I quite admit that to be true. But I contend that, the Senate, being a body of men not elected by or responsible to the people, has not the confidence of the people that an. elective chamber has and its members, have not the same influence that the members of an elective body possess. You, Mr. Speaker, or I, or almost any member of this House, could select from the members of the Senate, say, fifteen persons who, placed in this House, would have a greater influence for good than the whole ninety members of the Senate in the place that they occupy. The House of Commons, elected by the people is the Chamber that is primarily responsible to the people for

the work of this parliament. I can see no logical reason why the work done in this Chamber by the members of this House elected by the people, should be revised- nor can I see what is to be gained by having it revised-by the members of the other Chamber who are not elected by or responsible to the people. The members of the other Chamber are not superior-and I am quite ready to admit that they are not in any way inferior-to the members of this House by birth, education, information, experience or in any other way. I would object, and strongly object, to any reform of the Senate. As the hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) has said, many reforms have been suggested. I would look upon a Senate such as we should have were we to adopt any of the methods of reform I have heard proposed as not equal in value to the Senate -we have to-day. I would be opposed to the Senate reformed in any way I have heard suggested, and I am opposed to the continuation of the Senate as we have it. It is true that, from time to time, the Senate has made many changes-most of them minor changes-in legislation passed by this House. But to say that they have changed legislation is not to show that they have improved it; it is a matter of opinion whether these changes have been improvements or the reverse. It may be that sometimes they have improved legislation, it may be that sometimes the changes made by them have been a detriment. I contend that when the same political party has a majority in the House of Commons and also a majority in the Senate, the Senate is not likely to prove a very great check upon the work of the Commons. On the other hand, if either political party has a majority in the Commons while the opposition party has a majority in the Senate, the Senate may often times, from partisan feeling-because the members of that House are and must be possessed of partisan feeling as are the members of the Commons-[DOT] become a nuisance and a mischief. Without taking- time to repeat arguments that I have stated in this House twice already, I merely state in conclusion that, if this matter comes to a vote, I will vote in favour of the resolution.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no doubt whatever, having had the pleasure of listening for the second time to my hon. friend from Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) upon this question, that he is very much in earnest and very sincere in-the view which he has advocated. I cannot believe, however, that they are the views of the party to which he belongs, for if there is one thing more certain than another, it is that throughout the constitutional history of Canada the Conservative 64
party has always stood for a second chamber. There is no merit in this, I think; it is merely the maintenance of the tradition of the British constitution that it would be inadvisable to have legislation confined to a single chamber. I would invite the attention of my hon. friend to one most striking fact, and that is that the British constitution has spread throughout the world.
It has been adopted, not only by the most highly civilized countries of Europe, but it is now being adopted by the nations of the orient as well. I do not say that these nations have adopted the British constitution in its entirety, but in two characteristic features, the first being ministerial responsibility-adopted even by the French republic-and the other a second Chamber. Does the hon. gentleman believe, in view of this universal testimony rendered to the excellence of the British constitution, that we who pride ourselves on being the banner colony of Britain should go back upon this principle of constitutional government? Does he believe, when the experience of centuries in the wisest country in the world, the wisest in its constitution-has taught the desirability of a second chamber, that a second chamber was absolutely necessary to the adoption of wise and satisfactory legislation, that it would be wise for us in Canada to suppress the second Chamber?
It may be that the present action of the Senate is not satisfactory to my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster). I can remember when the action of the Senate as it existed twenty years ago was not very satisfactory to me, for instance. My scruples are not the same to-day as they were then, and it may be that the time will come when my hon. friend will change his views on this point, and, the. composition of the Senate being different, his objection may be removed. But he says that, as no satisfactory reform of the Senate is suggested, there is a general opinion that the condition of the Senate at the present time is not satisfactory and that all heartily desire a change. I agree that there has been a strong suggestion, made at different times and in different quarters, that we should have a reform of the Senate. But those who suggest not a reform of the Senate but its abolition are far less numerous. Canada is not the only country where exception may be taken to the action of a second Chamber. At the present time an election is going on in England upon action taken by the second Chamber. Without expressing.an opinion-which, I think, would be very inopportune to say the least-it is -clear that the action of the House of Lords is blamed by many, perhaps by the majority of the people of Great Britain, in fact that is the point before them. But whether the Unionists succeed or whether the present government succeed, there is no doubt



that the action of the Lords in rejecting the budget is resented by a very large portion of the people of the United Kingdom. But I have never heard it suggested, even by the most radical of the radicals, that the House of Lords should be done away with and the second Chamber suppressed. Of course, the wish is expresed that there should be a reform of the House of Lords, and, indeed, it is very probable that whichever party succeeds in the present election, whether the Unionists or the Liberals, as a consequence of the elections the House of Lords will in some way be reformed. But I am sure- and I think my hon.friend (Mr. Lancaster) has no doubt either-that there is no suggestion that the House of Lords should be abolished. I think it would be an unfortunate thing if the second Chamber were abolished. The same principle applies here. And now, in going a step further, let me speak more particularly to my hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller) than to my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster). At the time of confederation the second Chamber was established as a pillar of the constitution; it was established, not only for the general reason for which a second Chamber exists in all countries under constitutional government, but for the additional reason of the protection of minorities. Let me quote on this point to my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Miller) the very suggestive language of Mr. George Brown, and I know it will be appreciated by my hon. friend:
And first, it is said that Upper Canada should have had in the legislative council a greater number of members than Lower Canada-


Mr.  T. C. WALLBRIDGE@: Hear, hear.


Hon. Mr. BROWN.: The hon. member for North Hastings is of that opinion; but that hon. gentleman is in favour of a legislative union, and had we been forming a legislative union, there might have been some force in the demand. But the very essence of our compact is that the union shall be federal and not legislative. Our Lower Canada friends have agreed to give us representation by population in the lower House, on the express condition they shall have equality in the upper House. On no other condition could we have advanced a step; and, for my part, I am quite willing they should have it. In maintaining the existing sectional boundaries and handing over the control of local matters to local bodies, we recognize, to a certain extent, a diversity of interests; and it was quite natural that the protection of those interests, hy equality in the upper Chamber, should he demanded by the less numerous provinces.
So one_ of the reasons, one of the inducements given to the smaller provinces, to lower Canada, and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, was that there should be an upper Chamber as well as equality of representation, and this was for the protection Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
of minorities. My hon. friend asked with some pertinence:	What have the Senate
done during the forty years that it has existed for the protection of the minorities? He answered, nothing. Sir, I am glad that my hon. friend from Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) can say that the Senate has done nothing in the forty years of its existence for the protection of minorities. But this is not to the discredit of the Senate, it is rather to the credit of the House of Commons It means simply that the House of Commons has done nothing to endanger minorities.	,


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then you do not need a second Chamber.


Wilfrid Laurier: Pardon me, there is always a possibility of the power being abused. If we could depend upon human nature as we can upon my hon. friend, never to do anything wrong, then there would be no reason at all for keeping the second Chamber. But it is because men are fallible, it is because majorities may abuse their power, that it has been deemed desirable to have a control over the majority for the protection of minorities. Without at all going back to the old condition of things, to the old quarrels which happily have disappeared, and of which we have heard nothing for many years past, I may remind my hon. friend that there was at one time a strong effort made under the old union to disestablish the French language. Now it has been embodied in our constitution that the French language should be an official language. It is sometimes used in this House, hon. members speaking the French language keep it as a sacred thing. They do not abuse the privilege, but they sometimes use it, and I am sure no one will find fault with them if they sometimes speak in the French language, because it is one of their rights. But if the majority should take it upon themselves to abolish the French language, then the Senate would justify its existence for the protection of minorities. So it is with respect to the subject of education. There are special clauses in our constitution safeguarding the privileges of minorities in regard to education; and if the majority in this House attempted to do away or to interfere with anything secured to the minority in this matter, then the Senate would exercise its powers. May the time never come, as it has not come during the forty years, when the power of the Senate may have to be invoked to protect a minority against a majority in this House. But it would be a poor argument to say that because no case has occurred during forty years, it may never occur. Therefore it does not seem to me that my hon. friend's argument on this head is a very strong one.
He put forth another argument, that

there is no necessity for this second Chamber to protect the people against hasty or unjust legislation by this House. He says that there is a provision in our constitution -and he cited the articles, 55, 56 and 57- giving the power of veto to the imperial authority. Well, it is true that there is a power of disallowance given to the imperial parliament, it is possible for the imperial parliament to disallow any Act passed by this parliament. It is possible they may do so; but would my hon. friend seriously advise that any legislation passed by this parliament should be disallowed by the imperial government? Would my hon. friend think it conducive to good relations between the colonies and the imperial authorities if, when this House had passed an Act which some parties might deem to be unjust, and if they should petition the imperial parliament to disallow that legislation -does my hon. friend believe it would tend to good relations between the different branches of the empire if the imperial government were to veto that legislation? If his object were to dissolve the British empire, that would he the very way of doing it. We have had some experience in this country as to the effect of the disallowance of provincial legislation by the federal authority. The late Conservative government * supported by my hon. friend, exercised the power of disallowance on several occasions; but would my hon. friend, after his longer experience think it conducive to good relations between the provinces, conducive to good results, for the federal government to exercise the power of disallowance and trample upon the action of local legislatures?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In an extreme case it would be just.
Sir WILFRID LAUElER. But what might be considered an extreme case by one would be considered a very moderate case by somebody else. I appeal to my hon. friend to say whether the disallowance of provincial legislation by the federal government has been conducive to any very good results. The Conservative party at one time was rather of the opinion that it was wise to disallow provincial legislation. I think they have changed their mind of late years. I do not think that the Conservative party at the present time would believe it conducive to good relations, to peace, harmony and concord among the people of the different provinces, for the federal government to trample upon the will of the legislature in any one of the provinces.


Mr. SPROULE.: In looking over the history of Bills which have -been disallowed, I find the present government have made no change in that respect, if there has been any change.
64}


Wilfrid Laurier: I think there is a great difference. The present government have been very chary of disallowing local legislation. But the government which my hon. friend supported were prodigal in disallowing local legislation. Let me refer him to the Streams Bill, which was disallowed once, twice or three times in succession; and I could cite several others in which the local legislation of Ontario, under Sir Oliver Mowat, was disallowed by the government of Sir John A. Macdonald. But after a while, I am -glad to say, better views prevailed in the Conservative party.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: From 1873 to 1878, when the Reform party were in power, they disallowed as many Bills, in proportion to the time they were in power, as the Conservative government did.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Liberal party disallowed a certain number of Bills which were admittedly beyond the powers of the legislature. But-, when the powers of legislation which were strictly within the purview of the local legislature have been properly exercised we have been very chary of disallowing any such legislation. I do rot remember of any occasion on which we have disallowed such legislation, whereas, I recall several occasions -on which such legislation was disallowed by the government supported by my hon. friend. But I say this to my hon. friend that the remedy which he suggests against hasty legislation woul-d be a dangerous one and not such an adequate remedy as we have at the present time.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is there in the constitution.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is there in the constitution, but it is one of those: powers only to be resorted to in extreme cases and which are made more effective -by their non-observance than -by their observance. My hon. friend gave another reason. My hon. friend said that the character of this House has so much improved from what it was forty years ago that there could be no apprehension whatever of any hasty legislation being passed. Well, I am not so sure that my hon. friend can make that statement with accuracy. I am not so sure that the character of this House is superior to what it was forty years ago. I do not think it is inferior but I do not believe it is so much improved that this would be a measure which the people would be satisfied with. On the whole, Mr. Speaker, I think we had better keep to the old method. I hope my hon. friend will not find fault with me when I say that I am somewhat shocked and horrified and scandalized that I should be called upon to defend Conservative principles against a Conservative member.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: Mr. Speaker, I desire to offer a few words on the question of the abolition of the Senate which has been introduced by my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) and which my right hon. friend the Prime Mim ister has just been discussing. I noticed that the right hon. gentleman kept himself strictly within the bounds of the question of the abolition of the Senate and that he had not a word to say with reference to the conduct of his former friends and himself in the House when he was in opposition and when he urged upon the House and the country the reformation of the Senate. He does not even propose it at the present time.	.


Wilfrid Laurier: I keep to the question.


John Graham Haggart: Well, I am speaking to the question now. Not a word in reference to the reformation of the Senate! Of all the anomalies that were ever imposed upon a country the Senate, as constituted in the past, was one, in the eyes of the right hon. gentleman and his friends. But not a word now, not even now, when his friends over in the old country and all parties there are in favour of the improvement of the upper House-not a word of commendation from the right hon. gentleman, not a word to say that he proposed to carry out the promises which lie made to the people of the country again and again with reference to the reformation of the Senate. Oh, the Senate has reformed itself at the present day. There is no danger of anything wrong being perpetrated there. The senators are a different set of men at the present time. What has the personnel of the Senate to do with the question? The question is as to the constitutional foundation of it. Is it right or wrong? Are life senatorships in Canada today in accordance with the democratic principles advocated toy the right hon. gentleman and toy every one in this House? Is not the feeling nearly universal in this House that there should toe not the abolition of the Senate but the reformation or change in the manner in which the Senate is constituted? The right hon. gentleman refers, in contradiction of statements of my hon. friend from Lincoln, to the powers of disallowance. He says that this government ought not to exercise the right of disallowance which was constantly exercised in the past, and he suggests that perhaps there is a change of opinion on the part of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House with reference to that question. Why were these powers put in the constitution? If they are to be useless and not to be exercised at any time, why is it that they are in the British North America Act? The right hon. gentleman says that he has made a change in reference to Acts passed toy the provinces in exercising the right of disallowance. He Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
has made no change. If I remember correctly, the order in council which specifies that the power of disallowance shall toe exercised is the same at the present moment as it ivas under the former administration. The right hon. gentleman and his party have not made any chatoge in it. The principles laid down are the principles advocated by a leader of mine, Sir John Thompson, in this House, and embodied in the order in council. The right to the exercise of disallowance was limited toy the government itself, and it was only to be exercised under certain conditions. The right hon. gentleman speaks very truly in reference to the Acts that we submit to the imperial authorities. These Acts are submitted to the imperial authorities for the purpose of disallowing any which might interfere with the federal constitution itself or which might interfere with the allegiance which we owe to the imperial authorities or to the Throne. The right is one which will not be exercised unless for very grievous reasons, and it has never been exercised that I know of up to the present moment. The method that is most frequently followed is this: The Governor General sends Acts of parliament over to the imperial authorities. The imperial authorities look and see if any of these Acts interfere with what they consider the imperial prerogative, and if they do, they come back to the Governor General and a Bill may be introduced by the authorities in this country for the purpose of correcting that which requires change. Or, the Governor General may exercise the authority himself. The imperial authorities have never exercised it.
Now let us come to the question that is at present before the House. My hon. friend, in introducing his motion, does not propose a plan for altering or amending the constitution of the Senate, but he brings the question of abolition boldly before the House. No doubt the constitution of the Senate is an anomaly. The present constitution of the Senate is not consistent with the democratic ideas of the people of this country, and some reform is absolutely necessary. My hon. friend who moved the motion has a right to hear from the government of this country what they intend to do towards carrying out the promises they made broadcast throughout the country that they would reform the Senate. There is, I believe, a feeling in the country that there should be a second Chamber, but there is also a feeling that the Senate of Canada as it exists, is an anomaly in a country having such democratic institutions as we have.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I entertain the same opinions I have ever entertained regarding the Senate. Our own experience and the experience of all the great nations of history has taught

us the advantage of a second Chamber. From the dawn of constitutional government in England there has been f House of Lords and a House of Commons, and when the United States came to form its constitution it created a second Chamber. We hear arguments advanced in favour of amending the system of appointing United States senators but we hear little or no argument in favour of the abolition of that Chamber. France has a second Chamber, Germany has a second Chamber, Japan has a second Chamber, all great civilized countries have second Chambers, and in view of the experience of history it would not be wise for us to recklessly do away with a Senate in Canada even though that body does not fulfil our expectations of what a second Chamber should be. It should rather be our ainy to endeavour to devise some means to bring the Canadian Senate into harmony with the spirit of the age and the requirements of the country. We acknowledge our weakness when we say that we cannot accomplish any reform of the Senate. If we give our attention to the task, if this government gives attention to the task as it promised to do, I have no doubt that we can easily bring about reform. Before the Liberals attained power they pledged themselves to reform the Senate and the people believing that they were honest and truthful men, and men of resource returned them to power on that platform, but since the day they assumed the reins of government they have made absolutely no effort to carry out their pledges. There are two reasons, it seems to me, why the Caandian Senate has not come un to our expectations. In the first place the method of appointing senators is defective and I think a great improvement could be made in that direction. In the second place, the class of men who have been called to the Senate for many years past, since the present government came to power-and in this respect their predecessors sinned although not to the same extent-for many years past the men who have been called to the Senate are men who have been discarded by the people as unfit to sit in the House of Commons. That very fact is an evidence to my mind that they are not the best men to select for the Senate. I have always thought that those appointed to the Senate might be men from .various walks of life selected for their fitness, their knowledge of affairs and their independence. if that rule were followed the Senate would be independent of the House of Commons and would be better equipped to fulfil the expectations of the people. There can surely be some means devised either of electing or appointing senators which would cause that body to be more beneficial to the country than it is to-day. I
am in favour of having a Senate, but I am also in favour of having it reformed. At all events surely it is high time that the government should make some attempt to carry out its pledges. Now, my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) has referred to the fact that the province of Ontario has no second Chamber, but in my judgment had there been a well constituted second Chamber in that province, the late Liberal government there would never have dared to perpetrate the things they did. _ There would be a check upon them, their bad legislation would be rejected, and higher councils might have had a beneficial effect on their policy. The nrovince of Quebec has a second Chamber and whether it is doing good or not I leave it to those who are best informed to say. No doubt, in the smaller provinces which are something like our county councils there is not that urgent need for a second Chamber that there is in a country like Canada and in countries like the confederation of states in South Africa and Australasia. In my judgment the proper thing is to follow the system adopted in the mother of parliaments and to have two Chambers, the one to be a check upon the other. I believe that if we reform the Canadian Senate and adopt some better means for the selecting of its members, the country will not complain of the expenditure of that body.
House divided on the motion (Mr. Lancaster).
YEAS:
Messieurs
Best,
Campbell,
Chisholm (Huron), Crothers,
Currie (Simcoe) Emmerson,
Fraser,
Haggart (Winnipeg), Kidd,
Lancaster,
Lewis,
McCall,
McCarthy,
Magrath,
Meighen,
Miller,
Russell,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Taylor (New Westminster), Thornton, Wallace.-22.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Allen,
Armstrong,
Aylesworth,
Barker,
Black,
Blain,
Blondin,
Borden (Halifax), Boyce,
Bradbury,
Broder,
Brown,
Carvell,
Cash,
Champagne,
McGiverin,
McIntyre,
McKenzie,
McLean (Huron), Major,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin (Wellington), Mayrand,
Meigs,
Nantel,
Nesbitt,
Neely,
Northrup,
Oliver,
Owen,

Chew,
Chisholm (Antigonish), Chisholm (Inverness), Clark (Red Deer), Congdon,
Conmee,
Crocket,
Daniel,
Demers,
Devlin,
Douglas,
Dubeau,
Elson,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fortier,
Foster,
Gauvreau,
German,
Girard,
Graham,
Haggart (Lanark), Harris,
Hodgins,
J ameson,
King,
Knowles,
Kyte,
Lake,
Lapointe,
Laurier (Sir W.), Lavergne,
LeBlano,
Lemieux,
Loggie,
Macdonald,
MacNutt,
McAllister,
McCoig,
McColl,
McCraney,
Papineau,
Paquet,
Pardee,
Parent,
Paterson,
Perley,
Pickup,
Porter,
Proulx,
Pugsley,
Rankin,
Reid (Grenville), Reid (Restigouohe), Richards,
Rivet,
Ross (Middlesex), Ross (Rimouski), Roy (Montmagny), Rntan,
Schell,
Sealey,
Sinclair,
Smith (Middlesex), Smith (Nanaimo), Smith (Stormont), Sperry,
Sproule,
Talbot,
Taylor (Leeds), Templeman,
Todd,
Tolmie,
Tureotte (Nicolet),
Turgeon,
Warburton,
White
(Victoria, Alta), Wilson (Laval), Wilson (Lennox & Addington), Worthington, Wright.-111.
PAIRS:
Ministerial.
Turriff,
Molloy,
Messieurs
Opposition.
Sharpe (Ontario), Staples.
Motion negatived.
At six o clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PROVINCIAL REPRESENTATION IN THE SENATE.
James Davis Taylor: Whereas, it is provided by the Britisl Korth America Act, section 22, that in rela tion to the constitution of the Senate, Canads shaii be deemed to consist of three divisions \ iz., Ontario, Quebec and the maritime pro vinc^9, which shall be equally represented bi twenty-four senators for each division;
And whereas, there is no provision for th< creation of additional equal divisions upor the admission or constitution of other pro vinces, and the provinces west of Ontario have at present representation by only fifteer senators, although in population, size, con-Mr. SPROULE.
tribution to the revenue and representation in the Commons, they have attained importance 'calling for treatment as an equal division ;
This House is of the opinion that provision should be made for immediate augmentation of the representation of the western provinces in the Senate, by increasing said representation to six members each for British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, respectively ; and for such further readjustment of the representation of the western provinces in the Senate as may from time to time be called for by reason of development in population and importance of interests.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, this being a
day devoted to the consideration of the Senate, it seems to me most opportune to go on with this resolution. I may say that I felt myself justified this afternoon in voting for the resolution calling for the abolition of the Senate because, amongst other reasons, the Senate, as at present constituted, does not give the province which I represent the representation to which we think we are entitled. While this resolution covers the four western provinces, of course I speak more particularly for the province of British Columbia, because that province seems to suffer most from insufficient representation in the Senate. We find that in the scheme of confederation provision was made for three units of representation, one for Quebec, one for Ontario and one for the Atlantic maritime provinces the idea being to protect the smaller provinces by giving them an equal division of representation in the Senate. We find this difficulty in the scheme of confederation that no one then seems to have contemplated the inclusion of the great western provinces in the confederation and when one by one the western provinces did come in no general amendment was made to^ the British North America Act, but in each case, in the separate Act bringing in the province, provision was made for the representation of the new province in the Senate. The representation of British Columbia in the Senate was fixed at three and remains at three to this day, there being no provision for an increase! Manitoba's representation was fixed at four and remains at that figure. With respect to Saskatchewan and Alberta there is a provision that after the next decennial census their representation in the Senate may be increased to six for each province and while, of course, that gives to each of these provinces about what would be a fair representation, the verv fact that provision is made for them and no provision is made for Manitoba or British Columbia, makes the deficiency in the representation of the latter two provinces more apparent.
I gathered from the address of the right hon. the leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid

Laurier) this afternoon that he is entirely in accord with the .sentiment that the Senate should protect the smaller provinces, that the Senate should be so adjusted as to insure to the western provinces that they shall be represented in all important matters quite as fully as the larger provinces. I gathered from his remarks that he is in favour of the spirit of the resolution now before the House. I gathered also from the records of a few years ago when the question of Senate representation was before the House, that the right hon. leader of the House then realized that something should be done for British Columbia. Therefore, as I do not wish to make this in any sense a political address, but simply wi>sh to bring the question in a formal way to the attention of the House and of the government, I shall not say anything more upon this resolution at present, but leave it with the hope that we may receive some sympathetic assurance from the government that a measure of justice will be done to the provinces of the west.


Mr. A. L. FRASER (Kings, P.E.I.).: Mr. Speaker, I am glad of this opportunity to give some explanation of the vote I gave this afternoon in favour of the resolution for the abolition of the Senate. In the province from which I come, we are entitled to four senators, and it has so come about during the last few years that we are now entitled to only four representatives in this House. There has been a vacancy in our representation in the Senate for some time, and if the government really believes that representation in the Senate is of any value to a province, I think it behooves this government to fill that vacancy without delay. The vacancy occurred during last summer, this House has been in session for some time and the vacancies in the Senate representation from other provinces have been filled. The government, however, has not seen fit to fill this vacancy in the smallest province in Canada, and I repeat that the government should at once give us proper representation in that body.


Mr. A. S. GOODEVE (Kootenay).: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a word or two in support of this resolution. We in our province have felt for many years that we have not been quite fairly treated in regard to representation in the Senate. In the last general election, for the first time, the western provinces stood equal in representation to the maritime provinces. Under the British North America Act three units of representation in the Senate were established, each of 24 seats. We feel now that we have reached a time in the west when we should have one unit of representation, namely 24 senators, as we have west
of Lake Superior equal representation, namely 35 members, with the maritime provinces. That, I understand, is what this resolution asks for, that the Act shall be so framed that when our population shall warrant it, automatically we shall have the same representation as the other provinces. The new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan have four senators each and automatically they will be increased to six each, but there is no provision of that kind in relation to British Columbia, we having only three senators. I shall not advance any argument after the able argument advanced by the Prime Minister himself this afternoon in regard to the resolution upon the abolition of the Senate. He very eloquently stated that the justification for the Senate would be that it afforded protection to minorities. I think that is a very strong argument in support of the resolution we have here. We want protection to minorities, and in this second Chamber which is supposed to safeguard the interests of the people, being an independent chamber, we seek to be duly and justly represented. You will readily see that, under present conditions, instead of being a source of strength, instead of being an assurance of fairness, the Senate might be a source of great danger to the western provinces. If, at any time, a question should arise in which there was a difference of opinion between the western provinces and the other three units that compose this Senate, advantage might be taken of the western provinces. I think that for this, if for no other reason, we might reasonably look not only to the first minister, but to the government also for support of this resolution.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no complaint at all to make that this motion has been brought, still less of the manner in which it has been introduced by my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor). I rather welcome this motion and the expression of opinion which, up to this time, it has elicited in the House. I may say without hesitation that, so far as concerns my own individual opinion, I am altogether in sympathy with the object of the motion. The enacting part of the resolution begins as follows:
This House is of the opinion that provision should be made for immediate augmentation of the representation of the western provinces in the Senate, by increasing said representation to six members each for British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, respectively-
In introducing, some five years ago, the Bill for the creation of the two new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, I suggested, if I remember aright, this very idea that it would be advisable, before long,

to give to the new provinces an increase of representation in the Senate. The difficulty, however, is rather in what follows in the resolution of my hon. friend:
-and for such further readjustment of the representation of the western provinces in the Senate as may from time to time be called for by reason of development in population and importance of interests.
My hon. friend, I think, will agree with me that, when we deal with this question, we should deal with it in the spirit of the Confederation Act and at once make a new unit in the west and determine what the representation of that unit should be. It would not, in my juldgment, be in accordance with the spirit of the Confederation Act to leave it to parliament to increase from time to time the representation in the Senate. If there is one thing upon which all agree as to the controlling spirit of the constitution, it is that, in the popular Chamber, representation should be based on population, but in the second Chamber the principle of representation by population should not be followed, but that each sectional unit should be represented by a fixed number. Ontario was made a unit with 24 members in the Senate, Quebec another with 24 and the maritime provinces another with 24. My hon. friend suggests, in effect, a unit of 24 members. But the part of his motion to which I would invite his further attention and ask for his consideration is this: In giving 24 members to the western provinces, six for each of the four, leaving the matter to be changed from time to time, should we he acting according to the spirit of the constitution? If it were declared that the unit should remain at 24, or that, on these' provinces reaching a certain population, it should be made a certain additional number, I for my part, would be prepared to consider that view. But I think that the one thing we ought to insist upon is that nothing should be left indefinite, but that we ought to determine at once what is the maximum of representation to be given to the western provinces to make them a unit, The question is not free from difficulty. It is one upon which I should be glad to have the views of my hon. friend. It is a question the consideration of which I should approach sympathetically. If the hon. member (Mr. J. D. Taylor) wil) allow me, I would suggest that he do not press his motion to a vote, but withdraw it and leave it to the consideration of the hon. members. I assure him, on behalf of the government, that we will give it the best consideration possible.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that the position taken by the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is a very proper one under the circumstances. I Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
think it is generally understood that the representation of the country both in the Commons and in the Senate was settled on a basis that was intended to be permanent at that time-though changed conditions .may necessitate changes in the future

and that in the House of Commons the basis of representation was population, Quebec being the pivot. I think it was equally intended that there should be no change in the number assigned to the representation in the Senate. With equal propriety, I believe, Quebec might have been made the pivot of representation in the Senate as well as in the Commons, with the provision that when the western country was brought in it should be considered one portion to which similar representation should be given to that given to Quebec. It is a very good plan it seems to me, for us to provide for the present. Let us deal with the conditions of the future as those conditions make change necessary. I do not think that our experience of the past in laying down cast iron rules intended to apply for all time justifies us in believing that we can with safety and propriety repeat that course. So many changes take place that we are obliged to make changes to adapt ourselves to the new conditions. It seems to me wise to deal with the present and practically let the future take care of itself in this regard.


James Davis Taylor: I am sure I could not reasonably find fault with the reception which the right hon. the first minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has given to this resolution. And I may say at once that I am very glad to accept the suggestion which he has made to withdraw the resolution, leaving the matter to his-as I am sure it will be-favourable consideration. Let me say that my reason for suggesting provision for future readjustment was this: We have at present 35 members from the west in the House of Commons. In the next parliament, if the election takes place after the census of 1911, we shall have 65 members at least. Then in the parliament first succeeding the census of 1921, unless all signs fail, we shall have at least 125 members from these western provinces in this House. Therefore I did not suggest as a finality that the west should be content with one unit of 24 senators. I might also point out that western, like eastern Canada, is varied in its interests, and the time may come when we shall have on the Pacific coast sufficient population to justify a unit for purposes of representation equal in importanc * to the unit of the Atlanti'c maritime provinces. It may very well be that it will be thought proper to give us a separate unit for the Pacific coast, because our interests differ entirely from those of the

Northwest Territories constituting the centra] part of Canada. That was my idea when I suggested a further augmentation rather than suggest for the present the two units, as I think will be accorded the west in the lifetime of this generation, or appear to suggest that the people of the western provinces would be content with one unit as a final solution.
Motion withdrawn.


TRIAL OF WALTER BLYTHE.
Mr. T. G. WALLACE (Centre York) moved:: For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, documents and correspondence with referen e to and in any way concerning the postponement of the execution of Walter Blythe and also of his second trial.
He said: It is only right and just to the constituency I have the honour to represent, where considerable dissatisfaction exists, and having been brought to my attention with the postponement of the execution, that I should move to have the papers brought down.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: For one reason I do not regret that the hon. gentleman has placed this notice of motion upon the Order Paper. That Teason is that it gives me the opportunity to explain what possibly may be an entire misapprehension in the minds of some people as to the position of this case. But apart from that reason. I am very sorry to see a motion of this character proposed in the House. There have been two or three previous occasions, during the few years I have been Minister of Justice, upon which similar motions were made; and on each of these occasions I have tried to explain why it was extremely undesirable that papers of this character should be ordered by the House. The relations which necessarily exist between His Excellency the Governor General and his advisers regarding the exercise of clemency are of more than usually confidential character, and I am scarcely able to imagine a case in which it would not be better, in the public interest, that the exercise of clemency or the refusal to exercise it should not be the subject of public discussion. The King, under our constitution, is not only the fountain of justice, but it is his most distinguished prerogative that with him rests the pardoning power. That personal prerogative he delegates to each Governor General by his own letter of instructions and by special directions signed with the royal hand. The power to pardon, the right to exercise clemency, rests entirely with the Governor General of Canada for the time being. In capital cases His Majesty's instructions to the Governor General aTe not to act except upon the advice
of his privy council, but in other cases he does not take that advice. The government as a whole is not responsible for the action which may be taken with regard to any criminal condemned, except in capital eases, but in these the Governor General acts only upon the advice of his cabinet and upon the government of the day rests the responsibility. The case referred to in this motion is of that character, and I think I might content myself, in objecting to the passing of the motion, with the statement of fact that the man who was reprieved was afterwards awarded a second trial upon the ground that there had been a miscarriage of justice in the first, and upon that second trial he was found by the jury not guilty of the capital offence of murder, and as a consequence is now a prisoner in the penitentiary for a term of years. That circumstance surely demonstrates how dreadful it would have been had His Excellency not intervened and granted the reprieve which postponed the execution. I wish to say further that, judging from references to this case which I have seen in the newspapers and reports of statements said to have been made by men of the locality, another very great misapprehension as to the facts seems to exist. It seems to be thought that there had been repeated exercise of the - Dower to reprieve on the part of His Excellency the Governor General in Council. That is a mistake. The prisoner, who had been found guilty of murder and condemned to death, and sentenced to be executed upon a certain day, about the middle of May last, was, on the day previous, reprieved by order of His Excellency. For that reprieve the government necessarily takes the fullest responsibility. That reprieve having been ordered by His Excellency-and I may say at once the reason for it was simply that the House of parliament, being then in session, there was absolute necessity for time to give further consideration to the case, and it was impossible to give that necessary time before the date which was set for the execution-that one reprieve, or postponement of execution, however, having taken place, His Excellency's advisers decided that they could not recommend any interference with the sentence of the court, and there was an absolute end of any further interference with this case, or connection with it, so far as His Excellency's advisers are concerned. There were renewed [DOT]applications to different members of the council, to myself, and I think to the First Minister and possibly to other members of the council, in an effort, on the part of those who were interested in the prisoner, to secure further delay, or to secure some advice which might lead to a commutation of the death sentence. Those efforts were entirely fruitless. No further advice on the matter was tendered to His Excellency,

and so far as the government is concerned, their final advice, and their only advice, except in regard to the postponement I have described, was that they could not recommend any interference with the sentence of the court.
But under the law, any judge of the court before which a prisoner has been tried, has power, upon good cause, in his opinion, toeing shown, to postpone the execution of the sentence; and acting under that power there were, from time to time, I do not know how many different postponements of the execution of the sentence in this particular case. For those postponements, no member of the government has the slightest responsibility. His Excellency did not intervene; the decision of His Excellency under the advice of his council was that the law should be allowed to take its course; and no doubt the law would have taken its course, and wrongly, as it afterwards appeared, but for the circumstance that on different occasions some member of the court intervened and ordered another and still another delay of the execution. Ultimately, under these delays, the case was heard before the Court of Appeal when that court reassembled after vacation, I think in the month of September last year, and upon argument before that court, that court ordered a new trial, being of the opinion that the learned judge who had presided at the trial upon which the prisoner was condemned had omitted to charge the jury upon one very important issue in the case. It was entirely within the power of the court, it was the duty of the court, if the court saw error in law in the course of^ the original trial, to order that a new trial should be had, and the court having so ordered a new trial, its action would seem to have been justified by the fact that upon the second trial, and upon the jury at the second trial having been properly instructed as to the law, the second jury found the prisoner guilty, not of murder but of manslaughter. In the special facts of the case the whole question turned upon that distinct issue. The case was in many respects a very terrible one. The prisoner, in a condition of more or less intoxication, had beaten his wife and she died as the result. The question of his intention in striking her was all important. If he intended to kill, it was murder; if he intended but to chastise and was mistaken, if his blows were more violent than in his drunken condition, he knew, he was not in the eye of the law guilty of the more heinous crime of murder, but guiltv of manslaughter. The jury having received from the court the proper instructions as to their duty in the matter, and having their attention drawn pointedly to the question which they were deciding, decided upon the evidence which they heard, and of which they were the proper judges, that the man did not in-


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: tend to kill. I have not seen the evidence taken upon the second trial. The sentence not having been a capital one, that evidence did not in any way come under review before His Excellency's ministers. With regard to the evidence which was given at the original trial, I have read it, necessarily studied it, with all the care that it was possible for me to apply to it. I had my view, other members of council, upon the report which I made, and upon the discussion which took place in regard to the case around the council board, had their view. I am free to say that there was not unanimity among the individual members of the council on the subject. But that is just the kind of thing that to my mind, shows plainly that it is not in the public interest that the papers should be brought down, and that the advice in matters such as this given by council to His Excellency, should be canvassed, even in this House. I hope my hon. friend, under the circumstances, will not press his motion, but that, having had the discussion that there has been, having heard the explanation of the state of the facts which I have made, will see his way to withdraw the question from further consideration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is not a question upon which a layman would be expected to say anything, and but for the fact that it is equally important to the layman as to the lawyer that the public should have the greatest confidence in the impartiality of the administration of justice, I would refrain from speaking. But I have always held the opinion that one of the safest and surest guarantees for making the people believe that there is perfect impartiality is to give them the ground upon which the reasoned judgment was reached. I have heard the Hon. Mr. Blake say in this House once: 'I care very little for a man's judgment, whether he be high or low; but I care a great deal for his reasoned judgment, for then I can bring my intelligence to bear upon the question, and endeavour to satisfy myself at least whether he reached a sound conclusion or not.' Now I may say what may not be known to the Minister of Justice and the government, that there is a growing impression in the country that certain lawyers have such an influence with the administration of justice, or the government, or the Minister of Justice, that they can get almost any criminal off, or they can get the verdict of the court quashed. Now that impression that certain lawyers, whether it is due to the accident that they happen to be of the same political persuasion as the Minister of Justice and_ the government who are in power for the time being, or whether it is not, that impression is growing rapidly in the country, and it must be apparent to the Minister of Justice, as well as it is to every member

of this House, that it will ultimately lead to a very bad condition of affairs in any country if it results in destroying that respect which we have for the administration of justice in this country. We expect perfect impartiality. If the giving of publicity to the reasons which enabled the Minister *of Justice, or the Governor in Council, who,
I presume, was largely guided by the advice of the Minister of Justice, to reach the conclusion he did, results in settling the minds of the people who entertain improper views of the matter, in my judgment, it would not be an unmixed evil if these papers were given to the world. I can see very strong grounds for the contention which the Minister of Justice entertained, but, on the other hand, it seems to me that there are equally strong grounds for making these papers public so as to disabuse the public mind of the impression that there is anything wrong. There is another thing that I think will probably lead to good results; that is the distinction which the Minister of Justice has stated as between the Governor General and the Justice Department, that only in capital cases must the Governor General be guided by the advice of his council but that in other cases he may exercise his own judgment. Let that be known and it goes a long way to satisfy the public mind. If the people are under the impression that a wrong conclusion would be reached the responsibility would be placed on the right shoulders and the government would be relieved of it as a result. But, I think if it would accomplish no other end than satisfy the public mind that the same principles apply and that the same justice is meted out to_ all regardless of what their political leanings are, or what the political leanings of the lawyer are, or what their religious convictions are, or what their nationality is, it will do a great deal of good in the country, because, just so long as everybody has respect for the administration of justice and believes that every one is treated impartially there will be a good state of affairs in the country, while, if the reverse is the case, it breeds contempt for the law and it makes many men take the law into their own hands believing that they cannot get justice from the Justice Department.


Mr. LEWIS.: Mr. Speaker, I desire to agree with the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) as regards a great many of his remarks, but I wish to say that there is a strong feeling in this country that a man who, because of the crime committed by him, really deserved to be hung, has escaped the gallows. A drunken man who, while he does not intend to kill the woman, pounds that woman to death; is entitled to suffer the full punishment for his crime. The Minister of Justice will agree with me
that, even if he did not intend to murder the woman, the English law says that where a man is committing an unlawful act he is guilty of every act which ensues while he is committing that act. If the evidence adduced in this case only produced a verdict of manslaughter, then I think it is the duty of the Minister of Justice and of this House to have the law changed so that a man who commits the crime that this man did will be really punished and hung as this man should have been.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend is aware from the circumstances and history of the case, that if a guilty man, a murderer, has escaped the gallows, the blame cannot be brought to the door of the government, but the blame must rest upon the court. The only thing which was done by His Excellency the Governor General in the case of this man was simply to give him a reprieve. He was to have been executed at a certain date and the date was postponed. Numerous petitions were presented to the government in favour of this man asking for a pardon or rather a commutation of the sentence. The advisers of His Excellency did not think it possible that this petition could be granted, but as there was a good reason to know whether or not the man had been properly convicted a reprieve was given and then application was made to the court for a new trial. The court granted a new trial. Now, my hon. friend says there is reason to believe that under the British law, if a man commits a breach of the law, such as was committed in this instance, it follows that it was murder. In the present instance this man committed an offence upon his wife, he committed an assault upon her, he beat her -there is no doubt about that because the fact is admitted-and' as a consequence of that treatment his wife died. My hon. friend says it was murder. I do not know that I would differ from him, but the courts say differently. The courts say it was not murder. The case was tried again and the man escaped. Under such circumstances does my hon. friend believe, or is he prepared to say-


Edward Norman Lewis: I said that if that did not constitute murder it was high time for the Minister of Justice to amend the law so that it would be murder.


Wilfrid Laurier: -Well, we are discussing now another matter. The government has been held to blame, as I gather from the remarks of the hon. member for York (Mr. Wallace) and the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), because they granted a reprieve. Does my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) say that the government did anything wrong? On the contrary, will I not my hon. friend admit that the govern-

ment could not do anything else than that which they did and that they acted wisely and humanely in granting a reprieve since the result was to give the man a new trial, the consequence of which was an acquittal? In view of the circumstances in this case, whatever may be the private opinion which any one may have, we must take it that justice has been done to this man. His life was saved and he was found guilty not of murder, but of manslaughter. Under such circumstances would it not have been shocking to believe that if this reprieve had not been given this man would have been executed for a crime for which, after all, he was found not to be guilty? My hon. friend from East Grey says that there is an impression growing that certain lawyers have an influence upon the government and can get almost any sentence commuted. I disagree altogether from my hon. friend. I do not believe there is any such impression abroad in the country. I do not agree that such an impression is growing because there is no evidence to support any such imputation upon the government. Nobody can boast that he has any such influence upon the government. The facts of this case prove to the contrary. Counsel for this man asked for the commutation of the sentence. It was refused. They asked for a reprieve. It was granted and what followed showed that the reprieve had been properly granted. If the second trial, after the reprieve had been granted, had resulted in the same manner as the first, then my hon. friend would have had some ground for his contention, but when the reprieve was granted and the granting of it was justified by the courts my hon. friend has no justification for saying that there was any improper influence brought to bear upon the case.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The right hon. gentleman improperly accuses me of saying something I did not-say.


Wilfrid Laurier: 1 am very glad to hear it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I made absolutely no reference to the case at all although I know something about it. Nor would I pretend to say there was anything wrong. But I did say what I know to be a fact because I move enough around in the world to hear what is current talk; I said there was agrowing feeling in that direction, and if giving these papers to the public disclosed the fact that there was nothing wrong, I said it would go a long way to disabuse the public mind of that impression and satisfy every one that the Department of Justice was right. That is the only feature of it I pretended to talk about. I did not accuse the government of anything wrong in this case nor do I pretend to say there was anything wrong. But I Sir WILFRID LATTRIER.
desire to impress upon the government that if anything can be done, by giving publicity to these papers or anything else, to disabuse the public mind of that growing impression it would do a great deal of good in the country.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I rise to say a word,, principally in corroboration of what has been said by the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule). I did not understand the hon. gentleman to say that he thought these things were as common talk makes them, but I am bound to say that we in that district of the province of Ontario not far from Toronto, and on the streets of Toronto, cpntinually hear that a certain half dozen lawyers in the city of Toronto can get anything they want from this government providing the men who want it will give them the money. I am not saying this is so, but I am saying that certain lawyers are taking advantage of that impression in the city of Toronto, and the member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) is right in saying that if these papers are brought down and show there was ground for this reprieve it will go a long way to remove that idea. I do not say it myself, but if people believe these things the country suffers. I have not yet heard any good reason given why these papers should not be brought down. If these papers contain the information that the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister say they contain everything will be all right and the people can see it is so. The hon. gentleman from Centre York (Mr. Wallace) and his constituents will see if the papers are brought down that things are in a proper condition. I must say that on the main point, the rights of the hon. gentleman are being disregarded by the Minister of Justice. Surely this government is responsible to parliament for their action in advising the Governor General. The Minister of Justice has not said in so many words that they are not, but that is the logical result of his contention. If that is what he means, I must dissent from the view that the cabinet can advise the Governor General in regard to these matters and net be responsible to parliament as to why they gave that advice. There is a very good reason why the papers should be brought down, and it would be for the public good if they were brought down.


Edward Norman Lewis: Am I in order, Mr. Speaker?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Not except by way of explanation; the hon. member has already spoken.


Edward Norman Lewis: I did not say nor do I wish it to be' inferred that I thought there was anything wrong at headquarters, but there has been a travesty of iustice, there

has been a miscarriage of justice and I say it is the duty of the government and of the Minister of Justice to have the law amended if it requires amendment soi that this should not occur again. There is a strong feeling throughout the country that a guilty man has escaped the gallows.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I would ask permission of the House to say a brief word which is in the nature of personal explanation, in view of the observations which have fallen from some gentlemen with regard to the impression which is said to exist that some lawyer or lawyers can get anything they want from the Department of Justice. With regard to this particular case I understand it has been disclaimed that there was any intention to apply that observation to it. The gentleman who appeared as counsel in this case for the prisoner is a practising lawyer whose practice principally consists in the defence of accused persons and it necessarily results that many of his clients are c.onvicted, and I suppose it results as an equal matter of course that he is a very frequent applicant for clemency. I do not know; I cannot remember taxing mv memory to the utmost while I have been sitting here, if that gentleman appeared in this particular case or did not appear unon the application for commutation of the sentence. I can assure you, Sir, that it did not make the slightest difference whether he did or whether he did not. It is the duty of the Minister of Justice in >all capital cases to. read the evidence with all the care that he can bestow upon it. The responsibility rests I think upon him personally. Certainly that responsibility has not, in the time that I have occupied the position of Minister of Justice been neglected in any single instance. It has made no manner of difference whether the prisoner was defended by a lawyer or was not defended at all; whether the prisoner had any lawyer coming to Ottawa or writing to Ottawa, or whether he was absolutely friendless and had no one interceding or interesting himself on his behalf. How could it in the nature of things? Every word of the evidence has to be real and sifted and weighed, and marshalled one statement with another, in order that an opinion may be formed as to whether or not there is in this particular case -or in that particular case any room for doubt. The only action of the government in this particular case, was as I have explained, to advise a postponement of the execution. That proceeded absolutely upon the motion of the government itself and not upon anybody's request. It was for the reason which I have explained, and certainly in that action no lawyer at all intervened. Now,
with regard to criminal cases generally in respect to which it is said this impression exists-the same statement was made in this House by the member for North Toronto two years ago in moving for a return which was prepared with great labour and after long examination of the files for the last 13 years to show in each instance where there had been any lawyer intervening on behalf of any prisoner asking for clemency, who that lawyer was and what was the result of the application. That information is before the House. I hope hon. gentlemen will study it, and before any hon. gentleman will again say such a thing on the floor of this House as has Ijeen said to-night that the impression prevails or that the impression is abroad that some lawyers can have anything they choose to ask for from the Department of Justice, I hope any hon. gentleman who meditates such a statement will in common fairness examine that return and read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest it. I feel indignation that such a statement should be made here when the facts are before the House and before the public if any one chooses to look at them, and I want simply to say this further: That since I have been administering that branch of the Department of Justice in this country the cases which have passed through my personal hands have averaged from 50 to 60 each week; I have never let a single case pass through my hands without reading every word of every page of every paper on the file in that case. In the vast majority of these cases no lawyer at all intervened. The great bulk of them are cases in which either the prisoner himself applies from his prison or some member of his family writes to ask or some friend calls to see me to asx consideration of the case. I have let no opportunity pass unimproved to impress on every prisoner and on the friends of every prisoner that it is better for him, better for his pocket at all events, that he should have no lawyer representing him before me in the case. I want the assistance of no lawyer in the matter, I see no need of any lawyer in such a matter, it is not a matter for argument as upon legal points, it is simply a question of whether or not facts are presented on which clemency could be recommended, and I have done everything in my power to persuade prisoners not to pay lawyers money for any such offices, which do them no good in the world. If a lawyer comes to me and asks to see me to discuss a case pending consideration I cannot refuse to see him; in common courtesy I see any person, it makes no difference who it is, and any one can do as much good as any lawyer, no matter who that lawver may be.


Thomas George Wallace: I brought this matter to the attention of the House as I considered it my duty to do so because this murder was committed in my constituency. There was a great deal of dissatisfaction, and I do not know whether the Justice Department or some one else was responsible for the postponement of that first trial. I simply brought it before the attention of the House as I thought it was due to my constituents that I should do so. After hearing the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister, I do not wish to press the motion. I do not see any reason why the papers should not be brought down, but in view of what they have said I do not think it would be of any use, as they are opposed, to press the motion, and I beg leave to withdraw it. *
Motion withdrawn.


STATUS OF ENGINEERS IN CIVIL SERVICE.
Mr. A. B. WARBURTON (Queens, P.E.I.) moved:: For a copy of all papers, correspondence and memorials in the hands of the government with regard to the engineering service of the government, and respecting a high professional standard, a recognized official status by enrolment or incorporation in the Civil Service, and respecting a system of pensions and superannuations in connection with that service.
He said: Mr. Speaker, during the short time I have been a member of this House, and for a good many years before I had the honour of a seat here, I had not been an altogether uninterested spectator of what was going on in the Dominion, and I have not been an uninterested student of public affairs. I have deemed it my duty as a citizen of Canada to know as much as I could of what was going on in this country of ours, and among other things I have thought it well to inquire into some branches of the public service, not that I would pose as a reformer, but that I would wish as a Canadian, to understand what was going on in my country, to understand the position in which the public service was placed, and if it ever were in my power to give credit to any public servant, to be able to give it, or if I could not be of assistance to any of my fellow countrymen, to try and be so. In looking over the pifblic service of this country it has always appeared to me that the engineers who are now perhaps one of the most important parts of that public service, were in somewhat of an anomalous if not a false position. I have in conversation with members of the engineering service of this Dominion and also with many other engineers not connected with the public service, talked over and discussed this matter, and the consensus of opinion,


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: so far as I could gather it, was that the engineers are not in a position in which they ought to be placed. In the early days of confederation it did not appear, I presume, that engineers were of as much importance as we now know them to be. The engineer of that day might be a very accomplished, eminent and skilled engineer or he might be an engineer whose training was the training of the rule of thumb and of experience or none at all. The work they had to do in those days was not the work they have to do nowadays, and consequently many men, and very deserving men, found their way into the public service as engineers, who, in a strict sense, were not qualified for the position they gained, although their old time experience in works throughout the country enabled them in a great measure to succeed in the works entrusted to their hands. These works, however, were very different from the works which must now ibe undertaken by government engineers. Many of these gentlemen, some quite recently, have asked me to bring this matter to the attention of the government and of this House, so that their position might be placed before the government and before this country in order that such steps might be taken to ameliorate that position as might appear fit in the eyes of the government and of this House. As far back as March, 1901, the petition signed by the engineers in the public service from the Atlantic to the Pacific, was forwarded to the then chief engineer or acting chief engineer of the Public Works Department. That was some seven or eight years before the present minister entered this House, and I am informed on authority which I cannot doubt that no answer was ever received to that petition. In that petition tire engineers set out the changes which they would like to have made in regard to that part of the public service with which they were concerned. Let me, before going into these matters, point out for a moment the vast importance which the profession of the engineer in Canada and in the public works in Canada has attained. You have enormous public works, railways, canals, public buildings and innumerable other public works being carried on in this country in which the expenditure of money is simply enormous, and I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the difference in cost of many public works in this country will be very great in accordance with the capacity of the engineer employed. The engineer who thoroughly understands his business and is a man of integrity may save hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars. An equally honest engineer who does not understand his business so well may, with perfect honesty, lose the government and his country equally large sums.

As a very large proportion of the expenditure of Canada has to be made under the supervision of and to some extent through the engineers employed in the various branches of the government, it is, I think, right for us to consider their case. I am informed that in all the branches of the public service of Canada the engineers, perhaps the most important of the whole lot, are not included in the Civil Service of Canada. There are, I believe, one or two exceptions of engineers in some of the departments who are members of the Civil Service, but I am informed that in some of those cases, and they are very few, they are there not as engineers but as clerks, they draw salaries as chief clerks or clerks and not as engineers, not as members of the profession to which they belong and whose duties they perform. If that be correct, and I have the information on good authority, it justifies the statements I have made that the position of the engineering profession in the public service is not only anomalous but to a very great extent a false one. What course should the government take? The members of the engineers association are naturally proud of the profession to which they belong and object to their status not being equal to that of other branches in the public service. It may be gathered, from the few opening remarks I have made, particularly with reference to the past, that not much care is exercised in the admission of gentlemen into our public service as engineers. As I am informed, it has not been necessary for them to produce certificates or diplomas from any recognized engineering institute or credentials of any kind in order to get employment. It has not even been deemed necessary that they should produce any evidence of education, scientific, technical or general. But in saying this, I wish to be distinctly understood as not reflecting on the engineers now in the public service. On the contrary, I have a very high opinion of them, and it has been a source of astonishment to me that the government should have succeeded in procuring and retaining the services of such an excellent staff.
The first requisite for the government service should be high professional standing. That should be insisted on. While, as a rule, the engineers in the public service are well up in their profession, there are some exceptions, and I think that it would be in the interests of the service and of the engineers themselves that a fixed standard of efficiency should be enforced on admission. In other parts of the world, ' the importance of education, scientific and otherwise, is recognized by governments in the selection of their engineers, and it seems to me that a similar course should be followed here and a high standard insisted on. I know that the great majority
of the engineers of Canada are very anxious that should be done. They are not at all anxious that men should be admitted into the service as engineers who have not reached that high standard in the profession which ought to justify their appointment.
I have already referred briefly to the enormous expenditure of public money which takes place throughout the Dominion under the direction of engineers. Take for instance the Grand Trunk Pacific, on which hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent, a great part of it under the supervision of engineers. How vitally important it is in the interests of Canada that the men who superintend that expenditure should be thoroughly competent is self evident. But not only is there the expenditure of money to be considered. Enormous as that expenditure is, it is perhaps not the most important matter. By the expenditure of that money we are opening up and developing this great country, and this country could never have been developed as it has been were it not for the work of these engineers. On that work we have to depend for the opening up of the rich and fertile regions of the west; and unless the men we employ be competent, thoroughly trained to a high standard, it is almost hopeless to expect that the work will be done' in a satisfactory manner. Therefore, I would suggest that before a man is admitted into our public service as an engineer, he should be required to possess a high standard of qualification. He should have gone through a proper technical school, a proper school of engineering, or have the certificate of some institute of engineers on which reliance can be placed, A distinguished English engineer, Mr. James Chas. Inglis, the newly elected president of the Institute of Civil Engineers, London, in his inaugural address said:
Several important departments of state rely to a considerable extent upon the work of the council, and in some cases, upon advice given by it with respect to questions of the qualification of the engineers and of theiir selection for public services. The result of all this strengthening of the efficiency of the institution is that a higher average technical proficiency is Ui doubtedly attained by the young engineers attached to it than was formerly the case, and this state of affairs has been notably marked by the action of the India office with respect to engineering appointments in the Public Works department; and, very recently, by the War Office which has entrusted to the council of the institution the important function of selecting and recommending young engineers for nomination to the newly organized reserve of officers for the Royal Engineers.^ . . . The War Office has assigned to the president of the institution the duty of selecting men for , nomination to this reserve, as may be required from time to time.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, speaking for the department over which I have the honour to preside, and with a knowledge of the position which our engineering staff occupies in the department, I can say that I feel that there is a great deal to be said in favour of the view which has been presented by my hon. friend (Mr. Warburton), more especially in so far as the salaries of the engineering staff of the department are concerned. In speaking of the engineering staff, I include not only those who are engaged in the department at Ottawa, but those who are engaged throughout the Dominion, acting as resident engineers in the various important centres of Canada. My hon. friend has said that it is a wonder that we have been able to keep such good men as we have in the department. Sometimes I have entertained the same opinion as that which my hon. friend has expressed. From my observation since I have been minister I am satisfied that the country is fortunate in having in its employ such able and conscientious men as are engaged upon the engineering staff, not only at Ottawa, but throughout the Dominion. When we come to consider what engineers get in the employ of the different railway companies and other corporations engaged in the carrying on of various industries in the country 654
it does seem remarkable that we have been able to secure and retain in the employ of the government so many able and experienced men as we have at the comparatively small salaries which are being paid to them. To that extent I agree with the remarks which have been made by my hon. friend. I also agree with the view that every reasonable encouragement should be extended to the engineers in the employ of the government. But, I do not agree with my hon. friend, that, apart from the matter of salaries, they are treated any way differently from those who are engaged in other departments. My hon. friend says that they are not entitled to superannuation. The same remark will apply to others who are in the employ of the government, and who have come into that employment in recent years. Under the old Civil Service Act, the employees of the government were entitled to superannuation, but there were a great many employees in the Public Works Department, not merely engineers, but architects and clerks in the different branches performing important duties who were equally outside the Civil Service Act. When the present Civil Service Act came into force, out of a total of 230 employees of the Public Works Department at Ottawa, in its different branches, I think there were only some 36 who came within the terms of the Civil Service Act, and, therefore, there are almost 200 occupying the same position as far as the right of superannuation is concerned. My hon. friend is no doubt aware that some years ago the Superannuation Act was repealed, and that those who have come into the department since are not entitled to superannuation. As far as the engineering staff outside of Ottawa are concerned, they are in the same position as many other outside employees in the different departments of the government. The Civil Service Act, it is true, does not apply to them; neither does the Civil Service Act apply to other outside employees in the various departments. Therefore, those who are engaged outside of Ottawa are not in any worse position than the other employees of the government. I think, perhaps, my hon. friend based some of his remarks upon what was the status of the engineers in the Public Works Department before the Civil Service Act came into force. By that Act those upon the staff in Ottawa were all brought under its operation, and while some are named as chief clerks and some as clerks belonging to one division and another, the reason they were so classified was in order that full justice might be done to them, in order that they might go into that class to which the salaries they were receiving entitled them to go, and what we did for them we did in the effort to do complete justice to them and not, as I can assure my hon. friend, with any desire to do

any injustice, or from any failure to recognize the important services which they are rendering to the country. I only wish to make a few further remarks with regard to the way the engineering staff is being implemented from time to time, and I think that our practice is calculated to secure good service to the country just as much as the practice which prevails in other countries. We have, I believe, Mr. Speaker, in the resident engineers throughout Canada- and I am not prepared to suggest now that there is any exception to the remark which I am going to make-men who are a credit to the country, who are capable of discharging their duties well and who, I believe, do discharge the important duties of their positions in the best interests of the country. I believe they are intelligent and what is of even greater importance I believe that without exception they are honest and are endeavouring to get for the country full value for the moneys which are being expended under their supervision. What we are doing from time to time is to give encouragement to young men who are graduates from our various engineering colleges by giving them employment during the season of vacation under the direction of the resident engineers. If these young men show their ability in the work in which they are engaged, we give them encouragement by employing them permanently, and as from year to year they get greater experience, we add to their duties and place them in greater positions of responsibility. In this way the engineering staff throughout the country is being recruited, and so far as my observation goes we have not made many mistakes in the young men we have selected. I shall not refer especially to the work that is being done by the engineering staff at Ottawa and throughout the country, but I may say that any hon. member who keeps in mind the work that is being done by the engineers of the Department of Public Works must feel that these gentlemen are not only capable of doing good work, but that they do bend their best energies to giving entire satisfaction and seeing that the work under their supervision is well and faithfully done. I am very glad my hon. friend has brought this matter to the attention of the House. I recognize with him that the salaries are small, although they are larger to-day than they were some few years ago. Every year we recognize the services of the engineering staff by giving an increase, in some cases of $50 and in some cases of $100, and in a few cases more. We do all that parliament has authorized us to do with the moneys which have been placed at the disposal of the department. It will afford me very great pleasure to have the return prepared upon the motion of my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. PTJGSLET

Mr. GUSTAVE BOYER (Vaudreuil) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, despatches, documents and other papers relating in any way to the claim for a homestead, by the members of the family of Angus Sauve, who was in the African campaign, and who died a short time after his arrival in the country.


Wilfrid Laurier: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. LOUIS  J.@: PAPINEAU (Beauharnois) moved second reading of Bill (No. 48) to amend the Railway Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: Explain.


Mr. PAPINEAU.: This Bill, Mr. Speaker, is intended to Tepeal one of the amendments adopted last session to subsection 1 of section 298 nf the Railway Act, which concerns damages caused to property by fires started from locomotives used by railway companies in the operation of their lines. This section is comparatively recent law, having been first enacted in the Consolidated Railway Act of 1903, as a consequence, I believe, of the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Roy vs. the Canadian Pacific railway, which no doubt is familiar to the hon. members of this House. It enacts first, that railway companies are responsible for damage caused to any property destroyed by fire started from a locomotive, whether guilty of negligence or not, and that it can be sued therefor before any court of competent jurisdiction. Their full responsibility is there well established. But it is immediately altered in the next sentence, which states that if it is shown that the company employs modern and efficient appliances,and is not otherwise guilty of negligence, their liability in such case, for such damage caused by one or more fires on the same occasion is limited to $5,000 without regard to the value or number of properties destroyed. That is, Mr. Speaker, a railway company may set fire by sparks from its locomotive and burn out a whole village or town, and if it is established that it has used modern and efficient appliances, then it will be held to pay $5,000 to be apportioned among the parties who have lost their property on this occasion. This was the law in force since 1903 till last session when a Bill to amend this section was then adopted by this House, which made two amendments to it. The first struck out the enumeration of property for which compensation could be claimed from the company and substituted therefor the words ' any property.' The second added the words ' under this section ' after the word ' recoverable ' in the

ninth line, and was needed also, and the Bill was then sent to the Senate. When it came back another amendment had been added to it which I consider ought to be repealed. That amendment is as follows:
Provided further that the company shall, to the extent of the compensation recoverable, be entitled to the benefit of any insurance effected upon the property by the owner thereof. Such insurance shall, if paid before the amount of compensation has been determined, be deducted therefrom; if not so paid, the policy or policies shall be assigned to the company, and the company may maintain an action thereon.
By this amendment the railway companies are entitled to claim from the owner a sum equal to the amount they pay him out of the insurance there may be on any property that they destroy by fire started from their locomotives, provided they show that they use modern and efficient appliances and are not otherwise guilty of negligence. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the amount of insurance carried on property represents generally but a fraction of its value. In most cases, I dare say, it amounts to one-half or two-thirds of such value. Under the law as amended, and as it now stands, if a property worth $15,000 is insured for $5,000 and it is destroyed by fire caused by a railway locomotive, the owner has practically no recourse against the company because he will have to give the amount he may receive from the insurance to reimburse the company what it has paid him. The consequence of this is that since this amendment came into force, every property which is near a railway line and liable to be destroyed by fire from locomotives, is insured by the owner for the sole benefit of the railway compa.ny to the extent of its full limited liability. This law in this case takes away the insurance of the owner, who has paid, may be, for years and years, annual premiums for his own protection and gives it to the railway companies which, though they are solely responsible for the loss of the property, not only pay absolutely nothing, but deprives also the owner of his partial indemnity to help him out in such hard circumstances. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment should be repealed and the old clause, which in my opinion goes far enough if not too far in favour of the railway companies, should be restored.
Subsection 3 of section 298 states that the railway companies have an insurable interest in the properties that they may damage or destroy by such fires, and if they do want insurance, they can have it and pay for it, as everybody does. The principal objections to this amendment, which I propose to repeal, may be summed up thus:
1st. It practically deprives the recourse against railway companies for partial compensation for damage caused by fires set
by their locomotives, and restores the old law in force before 1903.
2nd. It takes away the benefit of a contract of insurance between the owneT of property and the insurance company and gives the benefit to the railway company which was not a party to that contract.
3rd. It, as a consequence, makes the owner of property pay premiums of insurance on his property, but for the benefit of railway companies, who get it to the prejudice of the owner.
Such is the object of this Bill, Mr. Speaker, and with these remarks, I have the honour to propose its second reading.


George Perry Graham: As my hon. friend (Mr. Papineau) has pointed out this amendment to which he refers was placed in the Railway Act in 1909 by the Senate. As he has rightly pointed out, the liability of the railway company is limited to $5,000 unless negligence on the part of the railway company be shown. The amendment inserted by the Senate was in brief to the effect .that if a property destroyed by fire originating from a locomotive had been insured the insurance would practically be deducted from the amount the railway company would have to pay. In other words the principle was that the man insuring would not get damages from the railway company for his loss and also collect insurance, getting double pay for the same loss, and that the railway company, if it had to pay damages up to a certain amount, would be protected to the extent of the insurance which the man collected. There is some reason for that, but as my hon. friend has pointed out there might be a case where the railway company might benefit rather than lose on account of an action for damages or the result of such an action. At all events it has been represented to me very strongly that if that Act of last session were allowed to remain on the statute-book there might wellfioe some amendment which would provide that the owner of the property who paid the premiums on the policies should get back the premiums he paid. Strong representations have been made to me during the two years I have been a member of the government along the line of the amendment made last year by the Senate, and there is some reason for some clause to that effect. My hon. friend .has pointed out circumstances under which it would not be fair. In view of the representations made to me in the past few weeks concerning this Bill, and in order that we may enable those who favour as well as those who oppose the Bill to place their views before the House, I would suggest to my hon. friend that we refer it to either a special committee or to the Railway Committee which is large enough to provide many special committees. If my hon. friend will

agree to that I have no objection to the second reading.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEWIS moved the second reading of Bill (No. 10) respecting load lines on ships. He said: I would be glad to have this Bill and also Bill (No. 11) respecting wireless telegraphy on ships, receive their second reading and be referred to the Standing Committee on marine matters.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEWIS moved the second reading of Bill (No. 11) respecting wireless telegraphy on ships. He said: I would be glad to have this referred to the same committee.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEWIS moved the second reading of Bill (No. 13) respecting injuries to persons due to motor vehicles. He said: I would be glad to have the Bill referred to a committee.
Wilfrid Laurier: It should be referred to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it not adopting a bad precedent to send a public Bill to the Private Bills Committee? It is rather an anomaly. The member has the privilege of moving for a special committee or a Committee of the Whole House.


Wilfrid Laurier: It does not follow from its name that this committee is to deal only with Private Bills; it is to deal with Bills of this nature also. I do not see why the Bill should not go to that committee, who can investigate it. However, we might let it stand and I shall consult the Minister of Justice about it.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOSEPH DEMERS (St. John's and Iberville) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 56) amending the Banking Act. (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the object of the amendments moved by me is to avert a recurrence of the business misfortunes or rather disasters which have befallen certain parts of our country within a few years past. It is intended to bring about this result through the establishment of a system which, though imperfect it may be,
George Perry Graham: 
Mr FIELDING.: There may be some portions of the Bill which may be useful in considering the Bank Act, but there are some features which are very debatable and as to which I shall reserve my judgment. I would suggest that my hon. friend should follow the same course as that adopted by another gentleman, that he should allow the Bill to pass the second reading and then go to the Committee on Banking and Commerce in order that it may be considered at a later stage when the government measure for the revision of the Bank Act is brought forward. 1 would be happy to let the Bill go with the understanding that it be considered with other legislation before the Banking and Commerce Committee at another stage.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MEIGHEN moved second reading of Bill (No. 65) to amend the Winding-up Act. He said: Not having anticipated that this measure would be reached this evening, I do not see that I can add anything to the explanation I gave on the first reading. The Bill is not one which requires much explanation. It supplies an omission in the Winding-up Act. In the Act amending the Winding-up Act, it is provided that appeals from a single judge may go to to the new Court of Appeals in Manitoba instead of to the Court of King's Bench en banc as formerly constituted. The new Court of Appeals in Manitoba took the place of the old King's Court Bench en banc, and consequently appeals from the single judge would go to the former instead of to the latter. In the Winding-up Act there is a provision providing that appeal from the King's Court en banc might go to the Supreme Court of Canada. In the amending Act that clause was not amended, so that as there is no longer a King's Court en banc, there is no appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. It was of course intended by the government that this defect should be covered, but by inadvertence it was not.
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: In the Winding-up Act which the hon. gentleman proposes to amend would no doubt be the better by the change, but it occurs to me that there is no reason why the amendment should not include also the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. The Court of Appeal for Ontario has jurisdiction, under the revised statute as it stands. The hon. gentleman is proposing to amend by including the Court of Appeal for Manitoba, but that will still leave British Columbia not provided for. It would be well to include British Columbia. It occurs to me that it would be better to have the matter dealt with by a select committee of say five legal gentlemen than by a Committee of the Whole House.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: I have no objection on principle to the suggestion of the hon. Minister of Justice, but at present litigation is pending which will require this amendment before it can be finally determined. I would not like to see the Bill referred to a special committee if that would retard its passage. As to the Court of Appeal in British Columbia, any amendment including it will not be objected to by myself, but would it not be possible to include that at once and have the Bill passed through the Committee of the Whole House?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: There are perhaps a couple of other sections in the Winding-up Act which would require to be 'amend-


William Stevens Fielding: ed to make them correspond with this Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I move that this Bill be referred to a special committee, to consist of Mr. Carvell, Mr. H. H. McLean, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Meighen and myself.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEWIS moved second reading of Bill (No. 71) respecting assaults and offences against the person. He said: I would ask that this Bill and Bills Nos. 13 and 14, all relating to offences under the Criminal Code, be given a second reading without comment and be sent to a special committee.
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Possibly the best course would be a similar disposition to that just made of the Bill to amend the Winding-up Act. There are some propositions in this measure that I should not be willing to see adopted. My hon. friend is proposing to make the special offence of rape on a girl under the age of fourteen punishable by the death sentence. Our law already provides the death sentence as the punishment for any rape, and I do not know why it was thought necessary to single out this particular class of that crime. But we all know that although-'rape is a capital offence, no instance exists in this country where the capital sentence has been carried into execution. Whether there is any object in legislation specially on this particular subject in the way my hon. friend proposes, I feel some doubt. But there are other provisions of the Bill in regard to which there is, no doubt, merit, and probably the best disposition would be to send the whole to the same committee, if that suits my hon. friend (Mr. Lewis).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time, and referred to committee on Bill (No. 65) to amend the Winding-up Act.	.
Edward Norman Lewis: I move that Bill (No. 13) respecting injuries to persons due to motor vehicles, and Bill (No. 14) to amend the Criminal Cede respecting offensive weapons and capital offences be referred to the same committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. H. H.: MILLER (South Grey) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 73) to amend the Interest Act. He said: I introduced a Bill in the earlier part of the session having the same object as that

which I seek to accomplish by this measure. Some question was raised as to whether we had jurisdiction, and I withdrew that Bill and introduced another, the one now before the House, to which, I am sure, no such objection can be made. This Bill provides, in effect, that a mortgagor may repay overdue principal on a mortgage at any time by giving one month's notice, or by the payment of one month's interest by way of bonus in lieu of notice. I think that this is a perfectly fair provision and one that no mortgagee or other person can reasonably take any objection to.	The Bill as I have introduced it is not retroactive. It provides, however, that though the terms of the contract of mortgage may stipulate that overdue principal cannot be repaid except upon payment of a bonus, yet, notwithstanding that, the mortgagor may pay on giving one month's notice or by paying one month's interest by way of bonus. Now, principal on a mortgage can only remain past due, the mortgage can only be permitted to remain in arrears, bv the consent or action of both parties, the borrower and the lender. And, if both parties agree to allow a mortgage to remain in arrears, I think their rights ought to be as nearly as possible equal. What are the rights of the mortgagee? He has the right to take action against the mortgagor to recover payment of his principal without notice at all. Usually, he has power to sell under the mortgage on giving one month's notice. However, most of our loan companies in the province of Ontario-and I think in the western provinces as well-say that if the principal remains overdue for a certain longer period of time the right of sale may be exercised without notice at all. The mortgagee may take foreclosure proceedings without notice. He may bring suit, without notice, for the recovery of past-due principal under the covenants of the mortgagor to pay. The mortgagee, having power to call in his overdue principal without notice, ought to extend the samS privilege of repaying overdue principal without notice. I am not asking to go as far in favour of the mortgagor as that, but only that he may be permitted to pay on one month's notice. In the province of Ontario we have a law of the legislature permitting the mortgagor to repay overdue principal on giving three months' notice or on a payment of three months' interest by way of bonus. I seek to shorten that time to one month. Private parties lending money on mortgage in Ontario do not exact the three months' notice or three months' interest by way of bonus. It is, however, the common practice of the loan companies. I may be told that in this Bill I seek to interfere with the contracts of parties and
that we ought not to interfere with contracts which parties have chosen to enter into. I say, in reply to that, that a great deal of our legislation does interfere with contracts between parties. Besides, I would point out the manner in which the contract is usually entered into by the mortgagor. He applies for a loan. He usually wants the money at a certain date; he wants to pay off a mortgage, to buy property, or to meet a maturing liability. There is not usually the condition in the application that he would have to pay three months' interest or give three months' notice in repaying overdue principal; he does not discover that condition until he comes to sign the mortgage a few days before he is to use the money. The mortgage form usually used by loan companies is a long form containing many covenants. It would take a long time for a mortgagor to read his mortgage, and the chances are only one in a hundred that he would understand the contract even if he took the pains to read it over. But suppose that if he did read and understand the contract, yet if he refused to execute it would mean delay in getting the money of which, perhaps, he is urgently in need at the time. And he would probably be told, if he refused to sign because of that clause that he would have to pay the expenses of the inspection of his property and of the solicitor in preparing the mortgage as well as the commission to the agent to obtain the loan. So, to avoid expense and delay, and as the misfortune-if it turns out to be one-is five years in the future, he usually signs the mortgage. In reply to this contention that I am interfering in contracts between parties, I would point out that we have on our statute-book a law, introduced by Hon. Edward Blake in 1880, now and for thirty years the law of Canada, that, if the mortgagor borrows money it may be upon mortgage for twenty, fifteen or ten years, yet, notwith standing that he has contracted to use the money and pay interest for that length of time, after he has used the money for five years, he may repay it by. giving three months' interest by wav of bonus. So, we have the example of interfering with contracts in-exactly the same way. As matters are to-day, a man borrows money: When the principal becomes due, the loan company, if they cannot at the time lend the money in some other place at better advantage, allow the mortgage to remain in arrears until they can call it in and lend the money at a higher rate of interest. Then, at a time when it will be of great disadvantage to the mortgagor, the money is called in to be lent at a higher rate, and the mortgagor, of course, must renew t the higher rate, or get the money from some one else. Now if this Bill becomes law,

the practice then will be that mortgagee loan companies will attend promptly to the renewal of their loans as they become due, and then the mortgagor and the mortgagee will have equal chances, whether the rates of interest go up or go down.
When I introduced the first Bill it was objected to on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and in order to get over that objection I have used in the Bill I am now discussing the exact language of the Hon. Edward Blake, and it is found in section 10, chapter 120 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906. In the Bill I first introduced I said that the mortgagor might pay off the mortgage upon giving one month's notice of payment, or upon paying one month's interest. But in this Bill I say, as Mr. Blake said in his section, that upon the payment, or upon the tender oi principle money with one month's additional interest, or one month's notice, if it be refused, thereafter no interest shall be collected, which is in effect saying that the mortgagor may repay and the mortgagee must accept. But the wording I have used brings the Bill clearly within the jurisdiction of this House, as I am sure the Minister of Justice will say, because under clause 19 of section 91 of the British North America Act, we in this House have the right to deal with the question of interest. I have talked to many members of the House, some of whom are not here to-night, and I met with scarcely any one who has any objection to the Bill, and most of them are warmly in favour of it. Therefore I trust it may receive the support of the House.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: When my hon. friend moved the second reading of the Bill for which the present one is substituted, a good deal of objection seemed to be offered by several members of the House to the proposition, and a grave question was raised by eminent legal gentlemen as to the right of this House to legislate upon such a subject. It was urged that what was really being done by the Bill then under consideration, was to make a new contract for the lender and borrower, and to substitute that new statutory contract for the one which, by the instrument of mortgage, they had entered into. I think there was considerable doubt on the phraseology used in that Bill, whether what was legislated about did fall within the subject of interest, in regard to which of course this parliament has, under the British North America Act, the exclusive right to legislate. No doubt my hon. friend was so advised, because he withdrew that measure, with the leave of the House, and has substituted this one for it. Now, so far as the wording of the present Bill is concerned, I think every one will be compelled to agree that it legislates only with respect Mr. MILLER.
to interest, and therefore it would be competent for this parliament to pass the legislation in question, if it was thought right to do so. But while that is probably the case, I think we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the effect of this legislation, if it becomes law, will be to substitute a new contract made in virtue of this Act of parliament, for the contract which the lender and borrower have entered into at the time the money was loaned; and then the question is whether the House is prepared to take that step; or, having the power to do it, whether it is expedient to exercise that power. Now, I quite agree that time was when, under the hardships of usurious contracts, gross impositions were practised upon needy borrowers at the hands of greedy lenders. I doubt if that time is still with us. I think we have come to such a state of things in this country, perhaps in all civilized countries, that at this date money is simply a commodity, and the man who has it charges for its use just what it will bring in the money markets of the world. The man who needs it knows that he is not in any way restricted to one lender. If he cannot get what he wants upon the security which he has to offer in one quarter, he will go to another. No doubt, just to the extent to which the security which he has may be poor, just to that extent he will have to pay a higher price for the accommodation which he desires in the shape of a larger rate of interest. I think it would not be wise to try to control freedom of contract as to the amount of interest, iat any rate an amount within reason, which a borrower who requires to use money for a little time, is willing to pay and contracts to pay to the lender. Now, it seems to me that this is a proposition practically of a similar character to a proposition to regulate the rate of interest which a borrower should pay or which a lender .should take. It does not seem to me that it is anything unconscionable for a lender to stipulate, when advancing his money to the borrower, that if it is not paid when it is due, he shall have three months' notice before being compelled to take it. I think experience shows that an investor who lives by lending to others the money which' his labour, it may be, has accumulated, finds that he cannot secure a new investment, upon the average, in less than three months' time. He may be fortunate in being able to lend his money almost immediately after it is paid, but he is quite as likely, it seems to me, to have to wait longer than three months before he finds a new investment for that money as to find one within less than that time. But, however that may be, if he says to .the borrower openly and fairly when negotiating their contract of repayment:	Now if you
cannot pay me, if you do not pay me on the day that you agree to pay, if you let it

run any _ longer, you must give me three months' interest, or the equivalent of three; months' interest, in lieu of the notice; and if the borrower says, I am quite content, and makes that contract with his eyes open, I do not see why parliament should step in and say: No, we won't allow that bargain to have its course, we force you, Mr. Lender, to take one month's interest, or one month's notice, upon penalty that if you do not do it, you shall get no more interest at all.
That is exactly the substance of my hon. friend's proposition. He says that if the money is not paid when it is due, then, notwithstanding any agreement that the parties may have made between them, if the borrower gives at any time thereafter one month's notice to the lender that he is willing to pay at the expiration of the month, then, if the lender will not take payment, he forfeits all further interest. It is a question whether the House is prepared to interfere to that extent with the freedom of contract that ought to obtain, and which it is in the general interest should obtain between men in ordinary business transactions. For myself, I should doubt very much the advisability of doing it. It seems to me it is going to make money harder to get on the part of the borrower. It seems to me that when the lender sees before him this provision of the law he will say to the borrower: I will not let you have the money at all, or if I let you have it, I will charge you a higher rate of interest, say one half per cent, or something of the sort, by reason of the fact that I shall forfeit all interest unless I take my money at a month's notice. It would strike me that it would be better to leave things to the play of actual business conditions and competition between lenders who are anxious to find places where they can make their money earn interest, and bring them in a return. I am quite aware that we have at present upon our statute-book a provision which my hon. friend has adapted and followed very closely in the framing of this clause. In our present Interest Act there is a provision applicable to mortgages of Teal estate which have five years and more to run, that whenever any principal money or interest secured by such an instrument is not payable for more than five years after the date of the mortgage, then, if at any time after the expiration of that period, any person liable to pay tenders or pays to the person entitled to receive the money the amount of principal and interest to the time of payment, together with three months' further interest, no further interest shall be chargeable.


Henry Horton Miller: I would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether or not the section he has just referred to is not in effect a
much greater interference with contracts between parties than the Bill which I am discussing and which I have introduced.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Very possibly it is, but that is not the point. I am saying that I am quite aware that this section is on our statute-books. It gives the lender three months interest or three months notice. My hon. friend proposes to reduce that to one month and to extend his legislation to all mortgages, whereas the present enactment is limited to mortgages of real estate. But whether or not the present provision of the law is a greater interference with the freedom of contract, I was intending to point out something as to the circumstances under which that provision of the law found its place in the statute-book, as it seemed to me to illustrate the inadvisability of putting anything else upon the same line on our statute-book. That provision of the law was introduced nearly thirty years ago, in the session of 1880, and, referring to the debate upon the subject at that time, it appears that the Bill, introduced by a private member, a supporter of the government of the day, was opposed apparently by every single member of the government. It met with strong objection, with a great deal of opposition and criticism just upon the ground that I have indicated, because it was considered an unwarrantable interference with the freedom and sacredness of a contract solemnly entered into. It was passed, however, notwithstanding the opposition of the members of the government in a body over their votes. It has been law ever since. I do not know what influence it may have had in the framing of contracts since that date, but I think it is very probable that the presence of that enactment upon our law books has been the reason for the very general term of three months' notice or three months' bonus which is to be found to-day in most of the mortgages that are current. Parties have contracted to correspond with that provision of the law, and parties having so contracted, if you are now going to say in regard to future contracts that the time has to be shortened in the interests of the borrower and against the interests of the lender, it seems to me that the result can scarcely fail to be what I have tried to point out.
Let me just say one other thing. I think the conditions were to a marked degree different in 1880 in respect to the ease or difficulty with which money could be borrowed from what they are in the year 1910. At any rate in the part of the country from which I come I know that in those years one great evil which every borrower felt and which was very widespread was the habit which lending companies or building I societies had of disguising the true rate of

interest they were exacting from their borrowers by the manner in which they framed their mortgages. Their mortgages calculated the interest along with the principal for the full period the mortgage was to run; then adding the total amount of the interest to the principal, they were in the habit of dividing it up into as many payments as the borrower desired, four per annum, perhaps, and, so dividing it up, they took from the borrower each quarter, from the time that he borrowed the money until he had paid the whole of that money, except the last instalment, the same amount; so that a man, after he had practically paid off the whole, or the greater part of his principal, was in reality paying perhaps fourteen, fifteen, or eighteen per cent, instead of the six, or seven, or eight per cent that, he thought he was agreeing to pay, and which upon computation he would appear to be paying. That was an evil and this legislation cured it. There are no more of such mortgages. Now, a man borrows money, whether from a private individual or a company, upon plain straight payments of simple interest calculated at a fixed per cent and payable either annually or semi-annually. If a man, entering into a contract for repayment with his eyes open and in perfect freedom, agrees that he will pay three months' interest in case he is not able to pay at maturity, or give three months' notice, it does not seem' that such- :a man needs the protection of legislation to change his contract and where there is no great evil to be met by the legislation my hon. friend is proposing, it would seem to me to be contrary to good policy to pass it.


Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.).: When this question was up earlier in the session I took strong ground that the proposition then made by my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) was ultra vires of this parliament, but I am satisfied that the present Bill is intra vires. That is admitted by the Minister of Justice, and I presume it will not be controverted by any member of the House. It, therefore, becomes a question of policy whether this Bill shall become law or not. And, while I am very diffident in dissenting from the judgment of so mature a mind as that of the Minister of Justice, yet, when it is a question not of law but of policy every member of the House has a right to exercise his judgment. The Minister of Justice has advanced somewhat strong reasons against the passage of the Bill, but there are reasons equally strong on the other side and which I think outweigh those given by my hon. friend. The Minister of Justice puts forward the proposition that this is a contract and that we have no right to interfere with it. I admit that if it be purely a question of contract between two parties this parliament has perhaps no right to interfere, although every session Mr. AYLESWORTH.
of parliament since I have been here we have passed legislation which has interfered with contracts. The lending of money has become so muih concentrated in the hands of loan companies in Canada that it is almost a necessity to go to these companies to obtain a loan. They have become practically a public utility, and if the loan companies make unreasonable contracts I see no reason why they should not be curtailed the same as unreasonable contracts made by public utility companies. For instance, within the last year or two the Railway Commission has found it necessary to interfere with contracts made by railway companies and the shippers of goods all over the country. The shipper was compelled to sign an application on the back of which were laid down conditions which for the most part never were read, and which the ordinary man could not understand the legal significance of, and as a result of that contract if the goods were lost or damaged in transit the shipper had no redress against the railway company. These contracts have been interfered with and modified by the Railway Commission. In the same way when one sends a telegram he has to accept a certain contract, and I venture to say that not one member out of 50 in this House has ever read the terms of it. When we go to these public companies they compel us to accept contracts, the true intent of which most people do not realize, and to a very great extent it is the same with a loan company. I may be prejudiced against loan companies. When I first Commenced practising law I was looking after all the dollars I could earn, and I accepted the solicitorship of a loan company, but I resigned after a year because in my judgment its proceeding was the most unfair proposition I ever was called upon to sanction. I will not mention any name, but that loan company compelled the borrower to sign a contract and give a mortgage along the lines of equal payments. I admit that a great majority of loan companies at present, or possibly all of them have abolished that form of contract. It was a most unfair contract and the borrower was compelled to sign conditions without knowing their true legal import. The Minister of Justice says it is not fair that a man who has made a contract that he shall not be compelled to take his money without receiving an advance of three months' interest should be compelled to receive an advance of one month's interest. I would like to know wherein a loan company differs from a bank. The loan company lends its money to the public on long terms and the bank lends on short term loans. But what would you think of a bank which would say that because the borrower did not pay his note yesterday when it was due he would have to pay a month's interest in advance be-

fore being allowed to redeem it. A cry would go up against such a stipulation which would soon be heard in this parliament. You know, Sir, the hardest thing in this world is to take from the privileged classes privileges which they have enjoyed in the past. We meet it every day; they are meeting it now in the old country, but from time to time these privileges are curtailed and no great damage is done, and the only wonder expressed is that they were not curtailed long before. If this Bill becomes law now I have no doubt that a year hence people will wonder why such legislation was not passed years before. I do not think a loan company or any one else suffers if a reasonable advance is given when money was not paid on-the very day it was due. I do not know whether any members in this House have had experience in trying to get these loan companies to release a mortgage before it became due. It will be found that in many cases where a man may have an opportunity to dispose of a part or the whole of his property, he cannot do it until the mortgage is taken off, and some of these loan companies in order to relieve the property will ask not one month's interest or three months' interest, but I have never known a case where they took less than six months' interest, and I know numbers of cases where they wanted a year's interest. I do not think the loan companies are entitled to very much pity from this parliament if the Bill should pass. I believe in evenhanded justice and in treating them fairly, but if ever there was a measure advanced in this House which appeals to my sense of justice and fair play it is the Bill we are now considering and I shall have much pleasure in voting for it.


Arthur Meighen: Before making some very brief remarks on this Bill I wish to premise by giving my interpretation of it, which, I think, does not conflict with that of the Minister of Justice, although it possibly does with that of the hon. member (Mr. Carvell). It does not appear to me that there is any retroactive feature in the Bill. The first sentence strictly confines the operation of the Act to such contracts as are hereinafter entered into. I do not think the placing of the comma in the third line before the word ' after ' instead of after the word ' Act ' has any other effect. If I thought it had any other effect, and if I thought it had in particular the effect of making this Bill retroactive I could not support that feature of it. Therefore, premising that the Bill can only operate as regards mortgages or renewals of mortgages entered into after the passing of the Act, I wish to state to the House my reasons for supporting it. It seems to me that the principal that should govern this House with regard to all these Bills is that we
should ask ourselves whether or not the legislation is in the public interest. If it is in the public interest, then it seems to me this House is justified even to the extent of breaking into contracts Already existing. It would, of course,' in such instances, take much more to convince this House that such a Bill would be in the public interest, but that is all that should in the ultimate determine any member in his choice. How far does the Bill go? It says that once a mortgage falls due, and is not paid, thereafter, unless the mortgage company or mortgagee says to the mortgagor: Come out into the open daylight, sign a new contract knowing its terms, they must accept the money on one month's notice. If the mortgagor is not in a position to pay, he is subject to the remedies of the mortgage and the mortgagee call insist on those remedies or make it uncomfortable for. the mortgagor. If the' mortgagor does not pay at the time the payment falls due, the mortgagee is compelled to go to him and explain the facts to him and say: Unless you are ready to pay, you must enter into a new contract. If the mortgagee lies silent, site by and lets things run, he has to take the consequence and has to say: I must take my money on one month's notice. There is no hardship there; what is the benefit? It strikes me there is a very considerable benefit. In the first place the Minister of Justice argues that conditions now differ very materially from those that obtained years ago when the Act introduced by the Hon. Edward Blake to which he referred was passed. It may be that in Ontario, and particularly within the clientage to which the Minister of Justice was in some degree confined, such conditions have changed, but out in western Canada I do not think I am going beyond the mark in saying that the conditions referred to by him, as existing at that time exist now in even a more marked degree. The average mortgagee throughout the newer parts of western Canada is no more on a par with the mortgagee, and particularly with a mortgage company than the average mortgagor was at the time of the introduction of the legislation referred to by the Minister of Justice with the mortgagee of that day. In a very great number of cases the mortgagor in those parts of the country is now a foreigner. I doubt not but in four cases out of seven the man who signs a mortgage on his land in western Canada has no real appreciation whatever of most of the clauses of the mortgage, and it is impossible for him to form an intelligent idea particularly of the penal clauses of the mortgage. Consequently it is not only within the power but I think it is the duty of this House, where-ever it can with advantage, to step in between these parties and make it impossible for an unfair contract to be perpetrated. The Minister of Justice has stated that we

should not stand between the mortgagor and the mortgagee and say to them: You must not enter into a contract whereby you shall penalize a mortgagor and .compel him to give three months' or six months' notice in case, on the very day the mortgage is due, he finds he has not paid it or is not able to pay it. I do not see that any great injustice can .be done by this. So long as all the remedies exercisable under that mortgage are still allowed the mortgagee, there can be no injustice to him, and at the same time we say that if the mortgagor, who is generally not on a par with the mortgagee, runs over the time he can pay it off on one month's notice unless the mortgagee informs him of all the facts on the day it falls due or shortly after and says: Come and enter into a new agreement. There is no hardship on the mortgagee that I can see. I do not think this House is likely to go too far in protecting the mortgagor. The different provinces have invaded the very field which the Minister of Justice holds so sacred. Throughout Canada, at all events in the province from which I come, recent legislation was passed affecting the relations between lender and borrower, and I must say that that legislation has worked out very favourably in the public interest. To-day in Manitoba any contract whereby the borrower undertakes To pay a greater rate of interest than 12 per cent is declared usurious, penalties are imposed on the lender, and he is unable to collect. That is the field the Minister of Justice holds sacred from invasion. This legislation is along the same lines as the legislation quoted by the Minister of Justice which certainly has been in the public interest, and when the minister acknowledges that in his long experience he has not seen any detrimental effect from that legislation, it seems to me that acknowledgment should go a long way to establish in our minds that no such detrimental effect has ensued. Surely the legislation referred to was in the public interest, but would it be in the public interest to-day to permit mortgage companies to tie up properties for 20 or 40 years, to make it impossible to give clear titles to property for great length of time? The legislation has been taken advantage of on many occasions and very properly, and with good effect. This is along the same lines, a step in the right direction. It does not go very far; I would like to see it go further to the extent of compelling mortgage companies either to take instalments as they fall due or to take payment on one month's notice. If it went to that extent it would seem to me more advantageous than it is, but going to the extent it does, I think it will work for the general advantage of the people and that it should receive my vote.


Arthur Meighen: 


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford).: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I am going to support the Bill as it is. As it was before, it was retroactive and, as I told the mover, I could not support it for that reason. I do not think it will work any particular hardship; on the contrary a good many mortgage companies and trust companies do not put those clauses in their mortgages. I know that many mortgagors do not read mortgages carefully enough. The difficulty is that they trust to the people from whom they are getting the money to a very large extent, and they do not read the mortgages through at all, but just the amounts and the interest. I do not think it will work any hardship, because lenders Will accommodate themselves to this law after it is passed. As my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) has stated very clearly, when the mortgage is due, if they cannot pay it, it is the lender's option then to make them renew the debt so that he can protect himself in that way. So far as I am personally concerned- and I have a good deal to do with lending money-I have never in ten years asked a mortgagor to sign a mortgage which had a penalty clause of that kind in it, without thoroughly explaining it, and when I explain it, the mortgagor will not sign. There is too much competition for the lending of money now, and consequently, in my section of the country at least, no need for borrowers to sign contracts containing any such clause. If a loan or trust company will not loan to the individual without such a penalty, the borrower can easily get the money from some one else. So far as the people I represent are concerned, they would be satisfied with the Bill as it is, and for that reason I shall certainly support it.


Henry Horton Miller: My hon. friend the Minister of Justice says we have no right to interfere with contracts entered into by people with their eyes open and with perfect freedom. I have tried to point out that these contracts are not entered into openly and freely. In 99 cases out of 100 the mortgagors are entirely ignorant that the contract signed contains any such provision. The hon. minister fears that one effect of the passing of this legislation will be to make it harder to borrow money on mortgage and raise the rate of interest. Well, I do not think we need apprehend any danger on that score because there is too much competition in the lending of money. The loan companies are the only ones that insert such a clause as I object to. It is not inserted by the trust companies, the life insurance companies and private lenders, so that there is no danger of any increase in the rates of interest. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice says that we have no

right to interfere with contracts, and he pointed out that the hon. gentleman who introduced section 10 of the Interest Act, which enables a man to pay off a mortgage any time after five years, no matter how long he may have contracted to keep the mortgage alive, was introduced by a private member and carried against the votes of members of the government. But the private member who introduced that Bill, which is still in our statutes, was the Hon. Edward Blake. He introduced it thirty years ago, and it has been the law ever since, and most excellent law it has proved. And although that law was passed in opposition to the votes of gentlemen then composing the government, if any government wanted to repeal that section 10, there would be a row that would cause them a good deal of trouble. If that law be right, then there is no reason why we should not pass the legislation I am submitting. What is the difference between section 10 introduced by Mr. Blake and section 10a of the same Act which I am submitting? Under Mr. Blake's amendment, although a man may have borrowed money for a term of twenty years and agreed to keep paying the interest during that term, and not pay off the capital, he was given the privilege of paying off his debt at the end of five years in spite of his agreement, and thus getting rid of the mortgage. Compare that with the amendment I propose. By my amendment, section 10a, I provide that if the money borrowed be not paid at the time stipulated, the mortgagor may give one month's notice of his intention to pay or pay one month's interest as a bonus, and the creditor is obliged to accept the same.. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Portage La Prairie (Mr. Meighen) this is not interfering with an existing contract at all, but simply provides that certain contracts should not be entered into in the future because they are contrary to public interests. We are passing similar legislation from year to year both in the provincial legislatures and this parliament. In Ontario, and no doubt in the other provinces, we have the Mechanics' Lien Act, which provides that although a mechanic enters into a contract to waive his rights to a lien for the work he has done, that contract is void and null because contrary to public interest. In our Act regarding the water carriage of goods, introduced as a government measure this session, it is provided that although shippers may enter into certain contracts and sign certain bills of lading, they shall not be bound by the same. If, as we have been told to-night by the Minister of Justice, section 10 of the Interest Act was introduced 30 years ago by Mr. Blake, then a private member, contrary to the wishes and passed contrary to the votes of the then members of the government


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My hon. friend is doing an injustice to another by saying that legislation was introduced by Mr. Blake. My recollection is that it was introduced by Dr. Orton.


Henry Horton Miller: Possibly, but it was fathered by Mr. Blake and is commonly called the Blake Act. If that Act, which was introduced and passed against the wishes of the government, has produced excellent results, it is a very good precedent, and I have no doubt that should the Bill I propose become law, excellent results will likewise follow.


Mr. BARKER.: Is there anything in it to apply to mortgages now existing or renewed or does it apply only to those hereafter created?


Henry Horton Miller: I have no wish to makd the Bill retroactive. It will only apply to mortgages hereafter made or renewed.


Samuel Barker: Better express that more clearly.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
William Pugsley: I would call the attention of the mover of this Bill to this point: What would be the effect of it where there is no agreement at all? It seems to me that the courts would interpret the section to mean that if a man failed to pay his mortgage on the very day it was due he could not redeem it at all without giving a month's notice or paying a month's interest. Surely that cannot be the intention of my hon. friend (Mr. Miller). The section ought to be amended to make it clear that it is intended to apply only to cases where there is an agreement in the mortgage preventing the mortgagor repaying overdue principal without paying three months' interest or giving three months' notice. In the province from which I come a man is entitled, ordinarily, to pay his mortgage at any time after it becomes due, unless it runs on year after year with interest paid on it, in which case the courts hold, that an implied agreement has arisen between the parties which would prevent the money being paid off except upon notice, in some cases of three months, in some cases of six months according to the periods when the interest is payable. But, under this section, as I have said, it seems to me the courts would hold, in the absence of an agreement, that the mortgagor could not pay off except by giving a month's notice or paying a month's interest.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the mortgagor does not pay when the mortgage is due, the company can exact the interest for a further term, and they do exact it.


William Pugsley: But suppose there is no agreement about three months' notice or

interest, yet the mortgagor neglects to pay the mortgage when due, leaving it to run for a week. Then, under this section he qould not redeem ^except :on paying a month's interest. That is a hardship, and I do not think it is the intention of the mover of the Bill to make that the law.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Could not the object be accomplished by inserting another subsection, providing that section 10a shall not apply to any mortgage in which there is no agreement requiring three month's notice?


William Pugsley: Another question which strikes me is whether the section, as framed, would really cover a case where there is a contract. Would not the courts hold that, as the section says nothing about a contract, parliament did not intend to cover a case where there was a contract between the narties? In that case, the section would be barren of results in che direction the hon. member (Mr. Miller) has in view. I may be wrong, but that is the view that presents itself to my mind at this time.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I cannot take that view. The whole tenor of the section is that, in any case, if the money be not paid when it is due, then, by tendering a month's interest or by giving a month's notice, the payment may be made. It seems to me that would be the case whether there was a contract requiring three months' notice or not. I am inclined to think the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) is right in his suggestion that this would apply to contracts where there was no penalty as well as to contracts in which there was a penalty.


Arthur Meighen: As to the first suggestion, with all due deference-for I know the opinion of the Minister of Public Works in a matter of law would be accepted before mine-it seems to me that that hon. gentleman is right and that the courts would be very likely to hold this clause to imply necessarily that notice would be required under all conditions. As to the suggestion that it is doubtful that the courts would hold the section to apply as against express stipulation, I cannot say that I have the same view as the minister. In any case, I think both these points are capable of remedy, and I would suggest the following: -After the word ' then ' in the sixth line of the section, add the following words:
Notwithstanding any stipulation to the contrary in such mortgage or renewal.


William Pugsley: That would cover it.


Arthur Meighen: Then, to meet the other objection add the clause:
Provided nothing herein contained shall be held to require the giving of notice or paying of interest by the mortgagor which he is not Mr. PUGSLEY.
required to give or pay at the time of the passing of this Act.


William Pugsley: Or it might be:
Where he is not required bv the mortgage or any agreement in respect thereto to give.
It requires careful drafting.


Henry Horton Miller: I think it would be as well for the committee to rise and report progress, and we will consider the Bill at another meeting.
Progress reported.


SECOND READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 75) to amend the Criminal Code. -Mr. Harris.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TURRIFF moved second reading of Bill (No. 87) to amend an Act to authorize a bounty to volunteers who served the Crown in South Africa.
William Stevens Fielding: I question whether my friend (Mr. Turriff) can introduce this Bill dealing as it does with bounties. In the absence of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver), I would prefer that he should let it stand..


Mr. TURRIFF.: There was no objection taken when I introduced this Bill. I introduced another Bill at the same time, which was allowed to stand, and in which the same question was brought to your attention and to the attention of the law clerk, who decided that it was a Bill that a private member was competent to introduce. This Bill is exactly on the same line.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not want a formal decision of the Speaker on the point, but in the absence of the Minister of the Interior, I would prefer if my hon. friend will let the Bill stand for its second reading.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Stand.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.

Tuesday, January 18, 1910.