1911-01-19

[Stage Direction]
Mouse of Commons tie bales

[Stage Direction]
Thursday, January 19, 1911.
Tlie SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 92) respecting the Alberta Central Railway Company.-Mr. McCraney.
Bill (No. 93) to incorporate the Alberta Electric Railway	Company.-Mr.	Mc-
Carthy.
Bill (No. 94) respecting the Western Central Railway Company.-Mr. Rankin.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SHARPE (Ontario) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 95) to amend the Indian Act.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Explain.


Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).: The object of this Bill is to amend section 45 of the Indian Act. That section deals with line fences between a reserve or the land of an Indian and the land of a white man, and by it the question of fences is left solely to the discretion of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. We have a band of Indians in my constituency and the line fences between the white settlers and the Indians have been in disrepair for many years. Application has been mads to the department, but no remedy has been applied. The object, of- this amendment is to make the band of Indians amenable to municipal by-laws relating to line fences. Subsection 3 provides:-
The said band or the said Indian is hereby made amenable to any provincial law or municipal by-law regulating the question of line fences where the reserve is situated, aifd the said band is entitled to the same rights and privileges and is subject to the same liabilities thereunder as .any other person.


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

[Stage Direction]
[The questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.]

Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	On what date and by whom was application for charter made by the provisional directors of the Farmers' Bank?
2.	On what date or dates was the required deposit made with the Finance Department, and by whom and by what cash or cheques?
3.	What steps were taken by the Treasury Board to satisfy the requirements of section 15 of the Bank Act?
4.	What was the date of issue of the charter and to what persons?
5.	Did the Finance Department or any of its officials, the Finance Minister or any other member of the government, receive any communications, verbal or written, previous to the issue of the certificate of the Treasury Board, cautioning, warning or suggesting inquiry as to the standing or character of the promoters, or the proceedings by which the deposit was procured?
6.	If so, did the government make any inquiry or investigation with the view of satisfying itself as to the bona fides and sufficiency of the undertaking?


Wilfrid Laurier: 1 and 4. The application for a charter for the Farmers' Bank of Canada was made by way of petition, presented to the House of Commons on the 27th May, 1904. James Gallager and others were the petitioners. James Gallager, of Teeswater; John Watson, of Listowel; John Ferguson and Alex. Fraser, of Toronto; Alex. S. Lown, of Drayton, all of the province of Ontario, were the provisional directors under the charter granted by parliament (cap. 77, Acts of 1904) on the 18th July, 1904. On the 20th July, 1905 (cap. 92, Acts of 1905) the life of the charter so granted was prolonged for an additional year, and on the 26th June, 1906 (cap. 94, Acts of 1906) the further period of six months from July 18, 1906, was added to the time within which the



certificate from the Treasury Board might be obtained.
2.	W. R. Travers deposited, on October
23, 1906,	$250,000 to the credit of the
Minister of Finance and Receiver General in the Bank of Montreal, Toronto, and the following day the receipt of the bank for this deposit was received in course of mail in the Department of Finance.
3.	A statutory declaration by Walter R. Travers, the general manager of the bank, together with exhibits attached, setting out in detail the manner in which the requirements of the Bank Act and of the special Acts of incorporation were complied with, was filed on the application for the certificate under the provisions of the Bank Act. The evidence of publication of the various statutory notices was verified. This evidence was submitted to the Deputy Minister of Justice, who stated that the statements in the statutory declaration of Mr. Walter R. Travers were sufficient, if accepted, to show compliance with the statutory provisions, and that on such evidence the Treasury Board might lawfully accept, under the Act, and thereupon issue the certificate referred to. The certificate' authorizing the bank to commence business was accordingly issued by the board on November 30, 1906.
5 and 6. As it is not possible to give an answer to these questions in the absence of the Minister of Finance, a reply is for the present deferred.


CANADIAN COMMISSIONER TO FRANCE.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. MONK :
1.	On what date did the position of Canadian commissioner for Canada in France become vacant?
2.	Has the government received any applications for the vacant situation?
3.	What is the cause of the delay in providing a new commissioner?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to make any changes in the organization of the said office? If so, what are the changes and alterations contemplated?
Wilfrid Laurier: The position of Canadian Commissioner for France became vacant about the first of September.
2.	The government has received no official application for the same.
3.	The matter of the appointment of a new commissioner is now under consideration.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-SECURITY RE CONTRACT.
Air. LENNOX :: 1.	What is the total amount on deposit with the government as security for performance of contract in connection with the National Transcontinental railway?


Sir WILFRID LABRIER.: 2.	What rate of interest is allowed or paid by the government on these deposits?
3.	Is this interest periodically paid or is it allowed to accumulate?
4.	If not periodically paid, is it periodically entered up, and at what intervals, to the credit of the contractor?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER :: 1.	$1,424,933.18.
2.	The same rate of interest as that allowed hy the post office and Government Savings Banks, namely, 3 per cent.
3.	Intersst is allowed to accumulate.
4.	Interest is credited the account on the 31st March, each year.


GOVERNMENT STEAMER ' EARL GREY.'
Mr. STANFIELD :: 1.	What is the name, place of residence and occupation on ship of each member of the crew, men and officers, of the ss. ' Earl Grey'?


Mr. BRODEUR :: Answer is as follows :


LIST OF CREW, WITH PLACE OF RESIDENCE AND OCCUPATION ON CANADIAN GOVERNMENT STEAMER &quot;EARL GREY&quot;.
[Stage Direction]
Name and occupation.
Place of residence.
Angus Brown, master
Wood ^Islands, P.E.I.
John L.: Read, 1st officer.... Fergus Ferguson, 2nd officer.
H. R. Cook, wireless	.
John MacMillan, boatswain..
L. Williamson, carpenter.... John Blue, quartermaster____
John Campbell n	....
Geo. LeBlanc	___
Pictou, N.S. Chance H arbour, N.S. Pictou, N.S. Wood Islands, PET
Belfast, P.E.I. Little Sands, P. E.I.
0-Mile Creek, P. El.
Charlottetow n, P.E.I,
Mungo Ferguson, watchman	
Dougal Mclsaac, deckhand. ...
John McDonald
Wallace McDonald
Jas. Shephard
Geo. Birch
Murdock McDonald
Gilbert Desroches
Wm. Poole Archie Arsenault
White Sands, P. E.I.
Charlottetow n, P.E.I.
Charlotteto w n, P.E.I.
Charlotteto w n, P.E.I.
Charlotteto w n, P.E.I.
Lot 16, Central, PEI
High Bank, P. E.I.
Miscoucae, P. E.I.
Souris, P.E.I St. Gilbert, Prince County P.E I.
Wm. Cousins Geo. Roberts
Campbe 111 o n, P.E.I. Pictou, N.S.

LIST OF CREW ON C. G. S. 'EARL GREY'-Con.


LIST OF CREW ON C. G. S. 'EARL
[Stage Direction]
GREY'-Con.
Name and occupation.	Place of residence
J. H. Hill, steward			 Rowland Beck, 2nd steward		Mur ray Harbour, P.E.I.
	
Wm. Bears n 		P.E.I. Murray River, P.E.I. Charlotteto w n, P.E.I. Shamrock, P. E.I. Tracadie, P.E.I St. Peter's Bay, P.E.I. Southpo r t, P. E.I. Geo r g e t o w n, P E I Halifax, N.S.
Alfred Hennessey, waiter		
Wm. Watts, cleaner		
Alfred Kaneen m
George Warry ..: 
Geo. Knockton . J.: Dunn, fireman.
Place of residence.
Charlottetown,

Souris, P.E.I.
Summerside,
Charlottetown,

Pictou, N.S.
Souris, P.E.I.
Charlottetown,

Charlottetown,

Charlottetown,

Pictou, N.S.
Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Pictou, N.S.
Charlottetown,


ST. PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. BRADBURY:: 1.	Has any money been paid by the government to the St. Peter's Indians since the 1st day of August, 1910? If so, what was the money paid for, when was this money paid, and what amount was paid?
2.	Was it paid at the suggestion of the Rev. Dr. McDougall? If so, what reason did he give for asking that this payment be made?
3.	What position does the Rev. Dr. McDougall hold under the government, and what are his duties?
4.	Did the Rev. Dr. McDougall report that the St. Peter's Indians are very much dissatisfied with the surrender?
5.	Did the Rev. Dr. McDougall report that the Indians complain of the way in which they were treated in relation to the disposal of their lands?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Yes. The money was paid under the terms of the St. Peter's surrender; in October, 1910; $7,691.50.
2.	No. Dr. McDougall was informed by the department before he left for St. Peter's towards the end of September, of the amount ready for distribution under the terms of the surrender and was instructed to report to the department when the Indians desired the payment to be made. He wired on the 20th of October as follows: ' Indians desire land money now.'
3.	[DOT] Rev. Dr. McDougall holds no permanent position in the government service, but is employed from time to time on special matters by the Indian Department and the Department of the Interior.
4.	No. ,
5.	No.


DRILL HALLS IN MANITOBA.
Mr. STAPLES:: 1.	What did the drill hall erected at Virden, Manitoba, cost, and wliat was the cost of the site?
2.	What did the Brandon armoury and site cost, respectively?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	$11,827.65. Site was donated by the city corporation of Virden.
2.	$66,859.14, including cost of site, $3,100.


VICTORIA MEMORIAL MUSEUM.
Mr. STANFIELD:: 1.	What was the cost of the land acquired for the purpose of the Victoria Memorial Museum ?
2.	What was the contract price for the building?
3.	What amounts have been paid to date, respectively, on account of original contract, and extras?
4.	What work has still to be performed before the contract is complete?
5.	Are the accumulations of unsightly buildings, lumber, stone, derricks and other machinery on the land adjacent to the museum required for the completion of the contract? If not, why are they not being removed?
6.	Will the work of laying out the grounds be performed by the contractor, the Department of Public Works, or the Ottawa Improvement Commission?
7.	What is the quantity of floor space in the museum ?
8.	Have the several rooms been allocated? If so, for what?
9.	What proportion of the space in the huildintr is being utilized for administrative purposes ?
10.	What amount of space will be set apart for the Fisheries Exhibit and the National Art Gallery respectively?
11.	Is it the intention to mount the large collection of birds and skins, which were stored in the old museum, so that students and the public may study them?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	$76,041.44, including legal expenses, &c.
2.	$950,000.
3.
On contract	$941,580 00
" Heating	- * [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] 41,400 00
"	Electric wiring	
14,500	00"	Ventilation	
23,400	00"	Elevators	
22,500	00"	Carving and modelling . . [DOT] [DOT]	17,227	03
" Additional work, fitting up
Art Gallery	
10,752	00"	Drain	
4,500	004.	The only work on the contract to be completed is the lower stair railing.5.	No. The contractor has been notified to remove them.6.	Not decided.7.	145,303 superficial feet.


Mr. OLIVER.: 8. Three floors of east wing for Art Gallery and balance of building for Geological Survey.
9 and 10. The floor space in building is divided as follows:
Offices, portion of basement and
2nd floors, superficial feet	..	[DOT] [DOT]	14,547
Exhibition room	71,660
Auditorium	 6,568
Library	 4,986
Art gallery	12,448
Halls, corridors and lavatories	.	.	. [DOT]	28,942
Boiler, fan and store rooms	 6,152
Total feet	145,303
11. It is the intention to mount some of the birds and. skins for public display and to prepare and place the remainder in scientific collections accessible to students.


FISHERY OFFICER AT GRAND MANAN.
Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	Is there an officer of the government stationed at or near Grand Manan, N.B., to prevent the dynamiting of pollock, or other fish ?
2.	If so, what is his name, occupation, residence, when was he appointed, what salary is he paid, and to whom does he report?
3.	What means are at his command to prevent the schools of pollock being dynamited?
4.	Has the government been informed of the dynamiting of pollock in the vicinity of Grand Manan, since the date of the appointment of such officer, if any?
5.	If so, when, by whom, in what instances, and on whose complaint were penalties imposed?
6.	In what instances, if any, penalties collected, and have any such been refunded in whole or in part? If so, which?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	Yes, one at Whitehead, Grand Manan.
2.	I. D. Irving, fishery guardian and fisherman, Whitehead, August 23, 1907, $15 per month. Inspector of fisheries, John F. Calder.
3.	A gasoline motor boat.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	None since date in question.


MANUFACTURE OF MATCHES.
Mr. DANIEL:: 1.	How many persons were employed in the match factory in Hull, Quebec, for each year respectively, from 1900 to 1909 inclusive?
2.	In the said respective years how many of such employees at Hull were affected with disease of hone due to phosphorus, and what was the actual number in each of such years?
3.	The same information for the same years as to the employees in the match factory in Halifax, N.S., and as to the number of such employees affected with phosphorus necrosis?
4.	And the same information for the same years as to the employees in the match factory at Hampton, N.B., and as to the number of

such employees affected with phosphorus necrosis ?	I
He said:	An asterisk was put on this
question, but there is no asterisk in the printed notice. If the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) has the answer, I would ask him to give it, because the subject may come up this afternoon.


Mr. KING:: 1.	The government is not in possession of information as to the number of persons employed in the match factory at Hull, Quebec, for the years mentioned. It is understood that the number of employees in the factory in question is at the present time about 200.
2,	3 and 4. This has not been definitely ascertained. I may say, however, that the government has instances of necrosis, and I will give information to the House on that subject when we come to the discussion. But it was impossible to ascertain the exact number of cases. That is why the answer is not more complete.


YUKON-REPEAL OF BEER IMPORT TAX.
[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that the ordinance made by His' Excellency the Governor General in Council in virtue of the provisions of section 16 of the Yukon Act, chapter 63 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, on the 9th day of December, 1909, and intituled: ' An Ordinance to rescind an Ordinance respecting the imposition of a tax upon ale, porter, beer or lager beer imported into the Yukon Territory/ a copy of which was, on the 13tli day of January, 1911, laid before this House for its approval under section 17 of the said chapter 63, is now so approved.
Mr. OLIVER.: Provision is made in the Yukon Act that the commissioner in council may make ordinances for the control and regulation of the sale of and traffic in liquor in the territory, subject to the provisions of any ordinance of the Governor in Council. In accordance with a resolution of the Yukon Council requesting the passage of an ordinance by the Governor in Council, an ordinance was passed in 1908 levying a tax of 50 cents a gallon on beer imported into the Yukon Territory. After an experience of one year of this tax, the Yukon Council saw fit to change its mind and pass a resolution asking that the tax be repealed. In accordance with the wish of the Yukon Council, an ordinance was passed by the Governor in Council repealing that tax. It is this ordinance of repeal to which the assent of parliament is now asked.


Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).: Does the minister intend to found a Bill on this resolution?


Frank Oliver: No. The Yukon Act requires that when an ordinance of this nature has been passed by the Governor in Council it shall be placed before parliament for its consideration and approval. If parliament disapprove of it it falls to the ground, but, if parliament approves of it, it remains effective.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: Is this the first time the Governor in Council has placed a tax on these liquors in the Yukon?


Frank Oliver: I think this is the first occasion on which a tax was placed on beer imported into the Yukon.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: What led the council to ask that this be done in 1908?


Frank Oliver: It pleased them to do so.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: They very soon found they wanted it changed.


Frank Oliver: That is true. But, of course, I cannot hold myself responsible for the forming of opinion of the Yukon Council or for the change of that opinion. But, we thought that as it was a matter pertaining to local revenue we were warranted in following their resolution.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Did not the government receive a revenue a number of years ago from liquors going into the Yukon?


Frank Oliver: From spirituous liquors. That remains; it has not been interfered with.


Mr. FOSTER.: I had supposed that a Bill -would be founded on this motion, but the minister tells us that is not the case. This, I understand, is to rescind a tax which has been, up to this time, leviable and levied, the proceeds of w'hich have gone into the revenue of the Yukon.


Frank Oliver: No, we passed an ordinance in 1908 to levy such a tax; but, in 1909, at the request of the Yukon Council, we passed an ordinance repealing the ordinance of 1908, thereby repealing the tax. Now, it is the repeal of the tax that' we ask the House to approve of. As soon as the ordinance was passed by the Governor in Council, the tax was thereupon and thereby repealed. It remains repealed if parliament approves of that order; if parliament does not approve of that order, then the order in council of 1908, establishing the tax, would, of course, again become effective.


George Eulas Foster: Then, it is a question whether we leave this tax on or not?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: That affects their revenue?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: To what extent?


Frank Oliver: It would not be possible for me to give a reply to that question' without a reference to the records. And I fear it would not be possible to give an answer without a reference to the records of the Yukon. I am not certain that we have the information he):e that would enable me to give the answer.


George Eulas Foster: I think that makes it a rather important matter for us to think about. If there is any shortage in carrying on the affairs of the Yukon-which is a very costly appendage to the Dominion at the present time, under the government of my hon. friends	opposite-Canada
as a whole must come to the rescue. Prima facie, articles like this, I think, should bear a tax, and usually do. What in the world is the reason actuating the Yukon Council in taking off the tax? The matter of revenue is so important that I do not think the minister ought to put his resolution through without giving us information as to how this affects the revenue. Does not the minister think that reasonable?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not agree at all with the view of my hon. friend (Mr. Foster). The Yukon Council is an elective body, not a nominative body, as it was a few years ago. It has pleased the people of the Yukon to elect the council, and the council have come to this conclusion. If it was a body independent of our control, I could appreciate the objection of my hon. friend. But this is now an elective body, and therefore they carry with them the will of the people of the Yukon.


George Eulas Foster: I think there is a weak point in the argument of my right hon. friend. If they are elective and therefore their will should be carried out, what business have we with this thing here at all ? But the very legislation under which they are acting is legislation of such a kind that this parliament holds the final -approval of the matter in its own hands, and that is why the minister comes here. If the Prime Minister wants to give full democratic elective legislative power to the Yukon Council, let him get rid of anything which makes it necessary to bring down tp this House the ordinances and laws passed by that democratic body. Evidently the meaning of the law was that there should be a supervision over them, and I think properly, in this sense, that after all, we have to come to the rescue in all financial matters with reference to -the Yukon. It is inconsistent in the Prime Minister to demand this to be carried out. If he stands on the ground of representative power, let him . Mr. FOSTER.
abolish the necessity for revising -their -acts in this parliament. Does not my right hon. friend think that is right ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, I think my -hon. friend's -memory is short. This law was passed when a council for the Yukon was adopted. That council was not elective but was nominated by this government, and therefore to a certain extent, we were responsible for their actions. Also, if my memory does not fail me, this provision was introduced at the time giving power to this parliament to review the acts of this nominative body, and I think it was at the suggestion of the hon. member for North Toronto himself that it was done. I think, if he will consult ' Hansard ' he will find that it was his own suggestion, and a good one it was, -that when the council was nominated by us, we should keep a hand over it. But since that -time the council has been made elective, and though the council was made elective this provision was not abolished, and still we have to comply with the law, and give the sanction of parliament to this ordinance, blow my view of the matter is thi-s, and I think my hon. friend will agree with me, that unless we are prepared to substitute our own wisdom for the wisdom of the Yukon Council, and to say that we know better what is good for the people of that territory than they know themselves, then we can say that -we have power not to accept this, and to set it aside. But I -think, unless there is a strong reason to the contrary, there is a prima facie case why this ordinance -should be passed.


George Eulas Foster: The Prime Minister has stated something which alters the case. But he must not hold me at fault, although he says it was a proper restriction to make when the council was nominated; I think it was. But when i-t was changed from a nominative to an elective body, that changed the basis, and the Prime Minister himself should -have seen that this legislation was taken off, so that we would not lay traps for -the unwary. But it seems to me it would be instructive -to this House and to the people at large, if we could know why it is that an -exception is made in the gay and merry Yukon, by not taxing commodities which in every other part of the Dominion, I think in almost every civilized country, are considered properly -taxable. Surely the minister -has some information with reference to that.


Frank Oliver: I could not say what might have been the inner reason for their so doing. But it was thought wise by this government in ths early history of the Yukon, to make provision not only for the levying of the ordinary license fees upon the retail and wholesale sale of liquors within the Yukon territory-which, of course, is

provided for, and which does exist undjr the authority of the Yukon council-but it was thought proper that in addition a tax of $2 per gallon should be put on spirituous liquors taken into the Yukon territory over and above any customs duty or inland revenue. It was a super tax of $2 per gallon on liquor taken in, which I understand goes to the revenue of the Yukon territory. There was no such tax on bear. As I have said, I cannot give the inner reason why the idea struck the Yukon council in the year 1907, but tha idea apparently did strike them; that the precedent in the case of the stronger intoxicant should be followed at a measurable distance in the case of the weaker intoxicant, and that if $2 a gallon was charged on spirituous liquor, it would be proper to charge fifty cents under like circumstances on malt liquor. They passed a resolution in accordance with that idea, and we acted upon it. After a year's experience I do not know why they saw fit to rescind their former resolution ; but they did, and we followed that by our action.


George Eulas Foster: Now, we are getting down to a point where we can appreciate the whole case. As I understand it, this is an import duty-


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Which no province of the Dominion has a right to put on, and which the Yukon has exercised, and which we for a time exercised, and the benefit of that went to the Yukon. So it was done by this House for the benefit of the Yukon. The import duty on spirituous liquors is still on, but it is proposed now that the import duty on malt liquors shall be taken off, as I understand it, and as I think the House understood it. It would be a dangerous thing, to give an idea that in the Yukon you had free beer and whisky, and if that impression were to go abroad we might have less members of parliament here than we have now.


Mr. CROSBY.: I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior whether that tax of 50 cents a gallon pertains to all beers made in Canada, or only to those imported. I would like to know if there is any way by which we can discover whether thsre is any beer imported into the Yukon outside of Canadian beer.


Frank Oliver: It applies to foreign made beer, not to Canadian or British made beer.


Adam Brown Crosby: Does the Yukon make any returns to this government, which would give us some idea of ths amount of beer consumed in that territory?


Frank Oliver: They do not make any returns, under the system of government
now prevailing they would not be required to make any returns. I do not think it would be possible to get the information my hon. friend desires. I could, however, inquire of the Yukon government, and get such information as may be possible, and give him the advantage of it later on.


Adam Brown Crosby: That will be satisfactory.
Resolution reported, and agreed to.


ORDERS IN COUNCIL UNDER DOMINION LANDS ACT.
[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that the following orders in council made by His Excellency the Governor General in Council under the provisions of the Dominion Lands Act, chapter 20 of the Statutes of 1908, on the dates respectively mentioned, that is to say:-
1.	P.C. No. 729, dated 20th April, 1910, made under the provisions of section 37 of the said chapter 20, rescinding the regulation for the disposal of coal mining rights established by order in council of the 9th May, 1907, and amending orders in council, dated respectively 16th February and 9th December, 1909, and establishing new regulations in lieu there" of.
2.	P.C. No. 1012, dated 25th May, 1910, amending P.C. No. 729, dated 20th April, 1910, respecting the disposal of coal mining rights.
3.	P.C. No. 2469, dated 9th December, 1909, rescinding section 3 of the coal mining regulations established by order in council of the 9th May, 1907, and substituting a new provision.
4.	P.C. No. 186, dated 31st January, 1910, as to the charging of royalty upon the output of coal mines.
5.	P.C. No. 3, dated 17th January, 1910, making regulations for the issue of permits to remove sand, stone and gravel, the property of the Crown, from the submerged beds of rivers and lakes in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, the Northwest Territories and within the railway belt of the province of British Columbia.
6.	P.C. No. 762, dated 21st April, 1910, rescinding section 3 of the regulations, established by order in council of the 17 th January, 1910, for the issue of permits to move sand, stone and gravel, the property of the Crown, from the beds of rivers and lakes in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, the Northwest Territories, and within the railway belt in the province of British Columbia, and substituting a new section 3 therefor.
7.	P.C. No. 313, dated 22nd February, 1910, amending the regulations established by the order in council of the 17th January, 1910, for the issue of permits to remove sand, stone and gravel, the property of the Crown, from the submerged beds of rivers and lakes in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories, and within the railway belt in the province of British Columbia.
8.	P.C. No. 933, dated 13th May, 1910, made in virtue of the provisions of subsection (b)
[Stage Direction]
of section 3. section 38 and subsection (k) of section 76 of the Dominion lands Act, approving the regulations annexed thereto for the leasing and administration of lands containing limestone, granite, slate, marble, gypsum, marl, gravel, sand, or any building stone, in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, the Northwest Territories, within twenty miles on either side of the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway in the province of British Columbia, and in the tract of three and one-half million acres acquired by the government of the Dominion from the province of British Columbia and referred to in subsection (b) of section 3 of the Dominion lands Act.
9.	P.C. No. 414, dated 11th March, 1910, rescinding the regulations governing the disposal of petroleum and natural gas rights the property of the Crown, in Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, established by order in council dated the 31st May, 1901, the 22nd December, 1902, the 23rd March, and the 1st of October, 1904, the 22nd of July, 1905, and the 26th December, 1906, and substituting therefor the regulations annexed.
10.	P.C. No. 277, dated 14th February", 1910, approving and establishing regulations governing the disposal of tar-sand deposits, the property of the Crown, in that portion of the province of Alberta lying north of township 80, and between the 4th and 5th initial meridians, under and in accordance with the provisions of section 37 of the Dominion Lands Act, being chapter 20 of 7-8 Edward VII.
11.	P.C. No. 188, dated 9th May, 1910, rescinding clause (m) of number 17 of the regulations governing the granting of yearly licenses and permits to cut timber on Dominion lands, and substituting therefor a new clause (m).
12.	P.C. No. 2103, dated 15th October, 1909, ordering that provision be made in the regulations governing the granting of yearly licenses and permits to cut timber on Dominion Lands, for the issue of yearly permits in the Peace River district to portable sawmill owners, whereby each such owner shall be permitted to cut timber on a definitely described tract of land not exceeding one square mile in extent, the quantity not to exceed 200,000 feet B.M. Dues shall be paid at the rate of 75 cents per thousand feet B.M., 20 per cent being payable in advance and the balance at the expiration of the permit.
13.	P.C. No. 261, dated 1st March, 1910, amending section 29 of the Quartz Mining Regulations, approved by order in council of the 13th August, 1908, by adding the following paragraph thereto:-
'The grant issued for such a location shall include the right to the iron and mica only, and shall not include the surface. The grantee may, however, upon application, be permitted to purchase at the rate of $10 an acre whatever area of _ the available surface rights thereof the minister may consider necessary for the efficient and economical working of the rights granted/
14.	P.C. No. 595, dated 20th April, 1910, amending the regulations established under the order in council of the 2nd June, 1909, governing the mode of granting water-power
Adam Brown Crosby: rights in connection with Dominion Lands in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
15.	P.C. No. 91, dated 21st January, 1910, ordering that the dues payable under permits to cut timber under Timber Licenses issued for tracts of unsurveyed lands which, upon survey, become school lands, shall be 50 cents per 1,000 feet B.M. and the rental $5 per square mile.
Copies of each of which orders in council were laid before this House on the 11th day of January, 1911, for the approval of this House under the provisions of section 77 of the said Act, are now so approved.
On resolution No. 1,


Frank Oliver: Order 729, as stated in the resolution, is an amendment of the regulations for the disposal of eoal lands which regulations were passed in 1907. After two years of operation it was found desirable to make amendments in certain minor particulars, but particularly In regard to the location of lands so as to secure proper priority to the person who actually located. In order to reach this end, instead of making an amendment to certain sections, it was thought advisable rather to draft an entirely new set of regulations for the information of the public, so that any person who had a copy of the regulations would have the law on the subject complete. There is no material difference between the regulations of 1910 and those of 1907.
For the information of the committee I may say that the regulations of 1907 made a very radical change from the regulations that prevailed previously. Up to that time coal lands were disposed of by sale at a fixed price per acre. The coal right was sold at $7 an acre and the surface right in addition, at an additional price of $3 per acre, so that up to the passage of the order in council of 1907 the condition wjas that any person had the right to apply for and purchase coal and surface rights at $10 an acre.


Mr. SPROULE.: Had he the right to purchase any quantity?


Frank Oliver: No, he had only the right to purchase 320 acres, but he had the right to assign or take an assignment so that the effect was that any person might acquire any area of land that he saw fit to buy at that price. There was, however, a royalty of ten cents per ton upon the coal mined. The effect of these regulations was, first, to give an opportunity to acquire valuable surface rights when the policy and administration did not look to the acquirement of such rights by private individuals. Where the surface right had appreciated in value so as to be worth more than $10 an acre and where the ordinary purchaser could not acquire that land, an individual might come forward and, by applying for it as coal land, could acquire it subject, of course, to

the royalty on the mined coal. But the fact of the royalty being ten cents per ton deterred the mining of coal upon that land because a great deal of land had passed from the hands of the Crown in the early days without any condition of Toyalty, and as there was plenty of such land to furnish an opportunity for coal operators the ten cents per ton royalty was a bar to development. The $10 per acre price afforded an opportunity for speculation and the ten cents per ton royalty was a bar to development. In 1907 the regulations were changed so that coal lands would not he sold, so that only the right to the coal could be acquired and that under lease at a rental per year. At the same time the royalty on coal to be mined was reduced from ten cents to five cents a ton upon such leased land, the result of which was that the man who wanted to acquire coal land for actual development found his opportunity improved by the change in the regulations because he acquired the right to operate by the payment of a yearly rental and on his operation he paid only half as much royalty as in the former case.


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend will allow me to interrupt him for a moment, only for the sake of getting clearly at this legislation-the minister will see that this is just the same as if he brought down fifteen Billsyand put them before the House with the idea that the House would legislate upon them. If they were Bills they would be on file and every member would have the Bills and could study their provisions and go along with the minister in his explanations. These orders in council have been brought down, they have been put on the table of the House, but the clerk has put them in his capacious pocket and spirited them away, and from that hour up to this not a single member of parliament has seen one of them unless he has been curious or wise enough to get at them and look into them. Under these circumstances it seems to me that it is absolute blindness for us to pass fifteen Bills really simply from the minister's explanations, which are plain enough, but, although we listened to the explanations we cannot form a judgment upon them because they are diffuse, and there are too many of them. In some way or other, if legislation like this is to take place, orders in council ought to be treated the same as Bills, printed and put before the members so that we could have them the same as Bills. This just occurs to me; it is all a blind piece of work to me; I try to follow it as nearly as I can, and I think the same would be true with regard to most members of the House. It is important legislation. Does the minister not know any way by which he could suggest a more intelligent consideration of the matter than this? I suppose these orders in
council are fairly voluminous, are they, or are they Tather short?


Frank Oliver: They are not very long.


George Eulas Foster: Then I will suggest to the minister that it would make things far better if he would print a stated number of them so that each member of the House would have his copy the same as he would have a Bill and then in a little time take them up. Does the minister not think that would be a better way?


Frank Oliver: There is no objection, I know of, to following the hon. gentleman's suggestion, but I may say that I am merely following the terms of the statute and the precedent of other years.


George Eulas Foster: If we had not so many of them thrown at us at once it would not be so bad.


Frank Oliver: We have every desire that every member should have the fullest information. These regulations have been printed for the information of every person interested, and I assumed there was sufficient information in the hands of members to enable them to form their judgment.


George Eulas Foster: Probably the minister has a sufficient number printed now.


Frank Oliver: Very likely. I do not know whether there would be enough of the order in council in its original form, but I think we would have sufficient copies of the information which was prepared for general use.
Progress reported.


CLOTHING OF DISCHARGED CONVICTS
Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to say a word with reference to a matter that was brought to the attention of the House yesterday by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards). It was stated that some articles had appeared in local newspapers complaining of the hardship a prisoner had suffered in being discharged fiom the penitentiary at Kingston at a time when the thermometer was below zero, with insufficient clothing. On seeing the article in the newspaper, I instructed a report on the subject to be asked at once from the warden of the penitentiary. That report has reached me this morning, and I think the substance of it ought to be made public in justice to the warden. This particular prisoner was released under direction of His Excellency as an exercise of clemency a few months before the expiration of his sentence by effluxion of time. He was a man liable to be deported to the United States, a citizen of the United States. All necessary inquiries and arrangements for his deportation as soon as

he should be released from the penitentiary had been previously made, and an officer cf the Immigration Department -was in readiness to escort him across the boundary. The warden says that upon receiving the order for the release of the prisoner he stated that fact to the prisoner, and told him that if he wished he might remain longer in the penitentiary until he could communicate with his friends in the United States or elsewhere if he had any hope that he would receive money from them. It was the prisoner's own wish that he should not wait for any such communication, but should be released at the earliest moment possible. He was accordingly allowed to go. But before leaving the penitentiary he was furnished with the clothing which he had when he came into the institution, end also with a complete new suit, boots, cap and underwear, and he was also furnished with five dollars in money. Instructions were given to the immigration officer who was to accompany him to Ogdensburg that no part of this five dollars was to be expended within Canada. The prisoner was, therefore, when he arrived at Ogdensburg, not penniless, or in the condition which has been represented, and the regulations of the penitentiary, as well as the interests of ordinary humanity, have, in this case, I think, been fully complied with.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT.
Mr. MADDIN.: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour when he will have ready for the House the report under the Combines Investigation Act, also whether regulations have been passed pursuant to the provisions of section 45 of the Act, and when we may expect the report of all such investigations as may have taken place under that statute, or whether any investigations at all have taken place.


Mr. KING.: Such report as there is to present has been presented to the House already in connection with the report of the Department of Labour. The hon. member will find in the annual report of the department the information he has asked for.


James William Maddin: Section 46 of the Act says that the minister shall lay before parliament within the first 15 days of the next session the annual report of proceedings under this Act, I submit that a mere reference to it in the report of the Department of Labour is not a report such as was contemplated by this section of the Act. One would look in vain for a report of the proceedings under this Act if he were to search for it in the annual report of the Department of Labour. I submit that the minister should lay before this parliament the report required under section 46 of the Act.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: 


THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL-FISHERIES REGULATIONS.
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Mr. Speaker, I desire to take this opportunity to refer to the negotiations which took place last week in Washington with reference to the differences still at that time existing between the government of the United States and this country in regard to the regulations and laws1 governing the operation of Canadian fisheries in Atlantic waters. It will be remembered that one of the principal questions in dispute referred to the arbitrament of the tribunal at The Hague was the question whether the legislation of Canada or of Newfoundland could be considered binding upon citizens i of the United States while exercising their treaty privileges within British waters; so long as such legislation had not been assented to by the government or Congress of the United States. If the decision of that question had upheld the contention of the United States that such legislation was not binding upon fishermen coming from that country into Canadian or Newfoundland waters it is plain, of course, that there would have been no further question in relation to any of our future or existing legislation. Such legislation would have been the enactment of regulations with which the inhabitants of the United States would have no concern, and it would have been indifferent to them what regulations we or Newfoundland might see fit to pass. The decision of that question, however, was in favour of the British contention, maintaining the sovereign right of Britain and her colonies to legislate with regard to these territorial waters, and maintaining equally that such legislation, so long as it did not transgress the provisions of the treaty under which the United States fishermen claim their right of access to our waters, would be equally binding upon such fishermen as upon our own people. That decision having been pronounced, it at once became a practical question what disposition should be made of the existing legislation and regulations on the part of Canada and Newfoundland.
The United States had taken formal objection before the tribunal to practically the whole of both Canadian and Newfoundland fisheries legislation, taking the position that, for one reason or another, all of this legislation contravened the true intent and meaning of the Treaty of 1818 and therefore, ought to be pronounced as of no effect so far as the fishermen from the United States was concerned. The disposition of that question, which had been agreed to by the parties in coming to their arrangement for arbitration, was that it should be pronounced upon by the tribunal itself. It was for that we had stipulated, it was that which we expected; but

when the award was pronounced in September last, the tribunal, instead of proceeding to deal with these objections, made by the United States to existing Canadian and Newfoundland legislation, referred the whole of such legislation to a subordinate tribunal which the main tribunal then directed should be constituted, such subordinate tribunal to consist of one representative from the United States, one from Great Britain and one appointed by the tribunal. The government of the United States appointed as its representative, Dr. Smith, the leading official, I -think, of their fisheries department ; the government of Great Britain appointed Mr. Morison, the Attorney General of Newfoundland ; and the tribunal itself appointed as -the third member, Dr. Hoek, professional adviser on the subject of fisheries of the government of the Netherlands. We were thus left in a position with regard to our existing Canadian legislation which was, to say the least, not a very satisfactory one. We had no representative from Canada upon this subordinate board which was to consider all of the Canadian legislation and regulations, and report to the main tribunal, leaving -the parties, if dissatisfied with the conclusions of the subordinate board, to be heard before the main tribunal upon tha-t tribunal reconvening at the Hague at some future time. For the reason that this disposition of the matter was not the one we had expected and which we thought we were entitled to by the stipulations of our agreement to arbitrate and not one which was in itself, satisfactory, it was thought that probably more could be accomplished by _ personal negotiation with representatives of the United States than by prolonging the litigation-more than could be hoped from any legal argument and examination in detail of the provisions before the subordinate board with a further appeal, if it should be necessary, to the principal tribunal; and because of the delay and the great expense which such a continuation of the litigation would necessarily involve, the course of amicable negotiation was very much preferred. Efforts were accordingly begun immediately after the announcing of the award in September last ; and by correspondence through the foreign office of Great Britain, an arrangement was made for a conference at Washington on the 9th of January last, at which representatives of the parties interested might meet and discuss the whole subject. Accordingly that conference was held on Monday of last week, at which there were present on the part of the United States government its Secretary of State, Mr. Knox, with his counsellor or assistant, Mr. Chandler Anderson, who had been the agent for the United States in the proceedings before the Hague tribunal, and Dr. Smith, the professional head or adviser of the Fisheries Department, along with Mr. Robert Lansing, one of the counsel for the United States during the proceedings at the Hague last summer. On the part of Great Britain, Mr. Ambassador Bryce and his -secretary, Mr. Young, attended, accompanied by Sir Edward Morris, the Prime Minister of Newfoundland and Captain O'Reilly, a fisheries officer of Newfoundland, and on the part of Canada, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), and myself, with Dr. Wakeham, the fisheries officer in charge of operations in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Meetings were had -twice each day during the week and as a result of these ten or a dozen meetings, I am very glad to be able t-o say, that I think all our existing difficulties with regard to the fisheries, up to the present known, have been satisfactorily -cleared up.
We had not -only -to consider the legislation and regulations of Canada, but those of Newfoundland as well. And after going through in detail, section by section and clause by clause, the whole of these regulations, the difference between the views entertained on the part of the United States and those entertained in this -country and in Newfoundland seemed pretty well to classify themselves under general heads. It -became reasonably evident, in the course of discussion, that at present at any rate it would not be possible for Newfoundland and the United States to agree. All parties were agreed in disliking the disposition of the matter which had been made by the award of last September. Every person present was convinced that a great deal could be done by conference, by explanation, by possible modification of any objectionable provisions of the regulations and by reasonable effort to come to a friendly understanding. And it was thought that if such effort should fail a much better practical means of settling the difficulty than the one which the -tribunal had directed, could be found in the constitution of an independent board or mixed commission, -one for Newfoundland and one for Canada, on which boards the United States should in each instance have its representative, and Canada and Newfoundland respectively, have -theirs, with the intervention of -a third man, who should not be a native of either country, in the event of the presence of such a third man being necessary. Accordingly, after going over all of the positions which were in question and discussing the whole situation generally, an agreement was reached on Wednesday of last week and that agreement was incorporated into a Minute of these Conferences, by which Minute it is agreed that this disposition of the matter which I have described, should be substituted for that which is directed by the award of last

September. This Minute of Conference is a short memorandum on the subject signed by all of the gentlemen who were engaged in the negotiations, and it reads as follows :-
Minutes of conferences lield at Washington the 9th, 10th, 11th and 12tK of January, 1911, as to the application of the award delivered on the 7th September, 1910, in the North Atlantic coast fisheries arbitration to existing regulations of Canada and Newfoundland.
The undersigned having considered in detail and with expert assistance the steps to be taken in consequence of the award in connection with the objections of the United States government to existing regulations of the fisheries in Canadian and Newfoundland treaty waters, as recorded in protocol XXX. of the proceedings before the tribunal of arbitration, and having conferred as to the best means of dealing with these objections, have arrived at the following conclusion:-
It is unnecessary to refer any existing regulations to the commission of experts mentioned in the award in application of article ITT. of the special agreement of January 27, 1909, or to reconvene the tribunal of arbitration; but any difference in regard to the regulations specified in protocol XXX., which shall not have been disposed of by diplomatic methods, shall be referred to the Permanent Mixed Fishery Commissions to be constituted as recommended by the Hague award, under article IV. of the special agreement in the same manner as a difference in regard to future regulations would be so referred under the recommendations in the award, unless by mutual consent some other rules and method of procedure are adopted.
It will be observed that this minute recognizes as the most desirable method of getting rid of the existing difficulties, diplomatic negotiations, and provides that failing diplomatic negotiations, the next best way in the opinion of those who signed the minute was the constitution of the special mixed fisheries commissions which the tribunal had recommended for settling future differences, if future differences ever arose, and that disposition of the matter by reference to these permanent mixed commissions was the one which the minute recommends to be adopted, unless by mutual consent, some other rule or method of procedure should be devised and agreed to. On the part of Newfoundland, it was thought when this minute was signed on Thursday evening last, that no further progress could at present be made, and in that view Sir Edward Morris and Captain O'Keilly left Washington on Thursday night. On the part of my colleague the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and myself the hope was entertained in view of the discussions which had then occupied four days of the week, that so far as Canadian legislation and regulations went, further conferences might not prove ineffective. Accordingly, before Sir Edward Morris left Washington, we discussed with Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.
him the whole situation, and our belief that an accommodation of all difficulties so far as Canada was concerned might be reached by further discussion, and with his full acquiescence and assent, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and myself remained at Washington with the object of renewing our conferences on the part of Canada alone during Friday and Saturday of last week. We had four meetings on those two days, morning and afternoon of each day, and as the result of these meetings we have reached such an agreement which, of course, applies to Canada and to Canada only. We found that the objections which were taken on the part of the United States to Canadian legislation with regard to the fisheries practically ranged themselves under four heads. They objected to our prohibition of purse seining, they objected to our prohibition of Sunday fishing, they objected to our system of issuing licenses to the individual fishermen, and they objected finally to the provision of our regulations authorizing the going on board of a United States vessel and searching her if she was suspected of any infraction of our regulations.


George Eulas Foster: Would these infractions include customs regulations, or only fishery regulations, in the case of boarding and searching?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Customs regulations were not made the subject of discussion last week at all and no difficulty, I think, can arise in the future so far as customs regulations go, because the award of the tribunal has been quite clear in directing .how far and just how far we have a right to impose customs regulations upon United States fishing vessels. However, probably some changes will require to be made in our customs regulations in consequence of the award. To mention one, I might point out that under the terms of the modus vivendi of 1888 a fishing vessel coming by reason of distress or for wood, water or repairs into a Canadian harbour was not required to report at customs unless she remained more than 24 hours. The tribunal at The Hague in its award last September changed that period to 48 hours so that under tire award a United States fishing vessel so coming into a Canadian harbour has a right to remain without reporting for two days instead of one. No doubt that regulation will require to be changed and there will be some other details with respect to our customs regulations which will need to be made to conform to the directions of the award. Customs regulations, therefore, were not under discussion last week in any shape, but we limited ourselves to the fishery regulla-1 tions applicable to the treaty waters on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and on

the Labrador north coast of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
To summarize-and I need not do more than, summarize because the details of the discussion hack and forward are not of interest-we have succeeded in persuading, in convincing the representatives of the United States that there is nothing wrong, that there is nothing unduly burdensome or discriminating against them in either our provision for boarding and searching a United States suspected vessel or in our prohibition of Sunday fishing or of purse seining. We, of course, called the attention of the representatives of the United States government to the fact that the provision for boarding or searching a vessel was a necessary regulation of police ; that it applied to any suspected vessel ; that the control and policing of these waters was necessarily with the 'Canadian government as they were Canadian territorial waters ; and that no one ought to object to reasonable investigation if the circumstances seemed to justify suspicion; and, at all events, in the result, their objection to that provision of our law has been withdrawn.
In regard to the fishing during prohibited hours on Sunday, we, of course, pointed out that it was in the interests of the fisheries themselves that a season of rest weekly should be given to the fish; that the water where they are should not be daily and hourly threshed and disturbed by the setting and hauling of nets, and the fish harried from place to place, so that, perhaps, they might ultimately be so. disturbed as to induce them permanently to leave. We pointed out that these regulations applied equally to Canadian fishermen. The objection made to these regulations was that they bore more hardly upon the fishermen coming from the United States; that these men, coming long distances and desiring to obtain their cargo and return as speedily as possible, were prohibited from exercising their calling on Sunday, even though they might be alongside the largest school of mackerel or herring, but the Canadian fisherman might set his net on the Saturday night and leave it catching fish for him over Sunday against the time, on Monday morning, when he might go to get his haul, and that, in that respect, the fishermen from the United States were placed at a very substantial disadvantage if this prohibition of Sunday fishing were to be enforced. Our regulations, however, were in such a shape that they were not open to this objection, because it was provided in our regulations that no net which is set should be allowed to remain out over Sunday or during prohibited hours unless a sufficient means of escape for the fish was provided by some apparatus in the net; and, on pointing out these regulations which, up to that time,
apparently, had not been appreciated on the part of the United States, it was practically conceded that the prohibition of Sunday fishing was a regulation in the in terest of the preservation of the fisheries- in the common interest therefore,-and one to which reasonable objection ought not further to be pressed.
And so in regard to the purse seining. Although that was a subject of considerable difficulty and in regard to which the professional advisers of the Fisheries Department in the United States seemed to entertain the view that it is not unduly destructive as a means of fishing, ultimately at all events objections in that regard were not pressed. No change is made or agreed to be made in our regulations under either of these three heads.
Now, with regard to our system of licensing individual fishermen, peculiar difficulties presented themselves. Under the treaty of 1818 liberty is given forever to the inhabitants of the United States to take fish of every kind upon these defined portions of our coast, and it was urged: That liberty having been freely conceded by Great Britain ninety years ago, how can you now seek to impede its exercise by a regulation which requires the issuing of a license, and the payment of a fee to obtain that license? No matter though the fee charged may be small, the principle of the thing, it was urged upon us, is against that system, and it ought not to be required of inhabitants of the United States who already possess under the treaty the unrestricted liberty to exercise their calling at pleasure in these waters. And additional difficulty was occasioned by the circumstance that when, five years ago, Newfoundland was proposing to adopt a system of licenses, that proposition had been vigorously objected to by Mr. Root, then Secretary of State for the United States, in diplomatic correspondence with the Foreign Office of Great Britain; and, in answer to Mr. Root's objection, a letter was written by the British Foreign Office in 1906 in which it is categorically stated that licenses could not be supported. And, in view of that holding and that distinct expression of opinion on the part of Sir Edward Grey as Foreign Secretary, Newfoundland has n Y attempted to put into force the licensing system. Still, it has been in force in Canada, and the Department of Marine ana Fisheries regard it as a most valuable system, as one which gives great advantages in the way of control over the individual fishermen and in the way of securing compliance with the regulations which may be made. Mr. Brodeur set himself to the task of convincing the representatives of the United States that it was in the interest of the fisheries-that it was in the interest of their own individual fishermen-

that a system of licenses should exist, and to the effort to prevail upon them to withdraw opposition to it and agree that it might be maintained. I am very glad, indeed, to be able to say that in that effort my hon. colleague has fully succeeded, and that by making concessions which he thinks are not of consequence practically, and which cannot do any injury to our own fishermen, to the fisheries, or to our system of maintaining licenses, he has been able to remove the objections which at the outset were very strongly entertained by the United States government to the continuation of these matters. In the result, we have agreed to recommend to council an alteration in three respects in our existing licensing regulations; and upon these alterations being made, the United States withdraws the continuation of its objections, not only to these features of our laws and regulations, but to the whole body of our existing fisheries legislation and regulations.
Of these three changes the first respects fishing for cod or herring by trap nets. Our existing regulation in that regard provided that such a thing should not be permitted in the Gulf' of St. Lawrence without a license from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. The modification to which we have assented is that this requirement of a license shall not extend, either as to Canadian or United States fishermen, to the case of a trap net set for either cod or herring, at a distance of a thousand yards or more from shore, or from any similar net which is set from the shore. In others words, we modify our regulation in that respect, so that whenever a United States fisherman finds a position enabling him to set his cod or herring trap net a thousand yards or more away from the shore, and also the same distance away from any other herring or cod trap net which is set from the shore, he may take that unoccupied position a thousand yards distant without requiring first to get a license. We exempt him in those circumstances, and we exempt the Canadian in those circumstances, from the requirement to take a license.
The second modification was one that we assented to at once on the practical effect of the present regulation being pointed out. The present regulation requires the leader of any herring or trap net to extend in every case from the shore; and it was pointed out on the part of the United States that we at any rate questioned their right to land for the purpose of taking fish. They did not concede that our position in that regard was correct. But they pointed out to us that we took the position that they had no right to land on the shores, for instance, of the Magdalen islands, and they said: Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.
If your regulation as to trap nets, both for cod and for herring, requires that the leader shall in every case extend from tlie shore, how is our fisherman to plant his leader, his anchor? He cannot do it from the water, and your regulation therefore practically prohibits him from participating in that manner of fishing. We conceded the position without hesitation, and agreed to substitute for our present regulation in that regard a provision by which, if the leader of a cod trap or herring trap net extends from the shore, the fishery officer may determine, in writing or orally, the length of the leader that shall be used, leaving the regulation silent on the subject of trap nets set for cod or herring where the leader starts from a location below low water line, leaving, by implication, the right, to either a Canadian or a United States fisherman, to set a cod or herring trap net with a leader starting from a location, not on the shore, but below low water mark. With that modification the regulation in question was not further objected to.
Then the final change is the addition of a regulation applying equally to herring and cod trap nets, which the representatives of the United States asked for, and which seemed to us no more than their right. It will be remembered that under the terms of the treaty of 1818 the inhabitants of the United States are given liberty forever to take fish of every sort in these waters in common with British subjects. The use of the phrase ' in common with British subjects ' seems to imply equality of right on the part of such inhabitants of the United States as may choose to come to those fishing waters, to ply their avocation there under the like conditions in every respect as might apply to British subjects. In that view, it was said on the part of the United States last week that if we were intending to maintain our licensing system, and they were tacitly acquiescing in it, there ought to be a recognition on the face of our regulations that an inhabitant of the United States applying for a license from our government should receive it under the ordinary rules and regulations, and in the like circumstances, as would govern if a British subject applied for such a license. I think the likely effect of such a regulation being accepted by the United States, or of their fishermen taking our licenses, would be the clearest possible recognition on their part of our system and of its propriety; and in that view, there being no objection to this proposal frqm the standpoint of our fishermen, it seemed to me, looking at it from a lawyer's point of view, that it would be rather an advantage to Canada that it should be present in our regulations than that it should not. Accordingly, we have

assented, and add to our existing regulations this third provision in regard to cod and herring trap nets:
Upon any inhabitant of the United States fishing with trap nets in Canadian waters in the exercise of his liberties under the treaty of 1818, applying for a berth site under the licensing provisions, such a license shall be issued in the usual course for any unoccupied berth site selected by the applicant upon the payment of the regular fee, in consideration of the exclusive use of such site, subject to the usual rules and regulations. *
On our agreeing to make these three alterations in our existing regulations, a Minute was drawn up of the conferences of Friday and Saturday last by which Minute the understanding is recorded that in view of Canada s willingness to make these alterations, and in view of the present method of administering the Canadian laws and fishing regulations, the United States does noTat present press its objections as recorded before the tribunal in the protocol I have already referred to. The United States representatives stipulated, however, that they could not at the present time close finally with Canada in view of the fact that the regulations of Newfoundland were still under consideration and that if they now concluded any final agreement in regard to the Canadian prohibition of purse seining or Sunday fishing it might prejudice their position in further discussion of like regulations which obtained in Newfoundland. In view of that difficulty it was agreed that this settlement with Canada, while it was confidently expected on both sides that it will he permanent and final, should not prejudice the United States, if, in future, conditions should so change that it became necessary for them to renew any of these objections. The Minute accordingly reads:
The undersigned, having considered the best means of dealing with the objections referfed to, subject to the Minute of previous conferences signed January 12, have arrived at the following conclusion:-[DOT]
Having regard to the present method of administering the Canadian laws and fishery regulations and to certain amendments which Canada is willing to make therein and to the present state of the fisheries and conditions under which they are carried on and places of fishing, the United States does not press at present any of the objections referred to in protocol XXX. which relate to Canadian laws and fishery regulations, it being understood that the right of the United States to renew such objections is not thereby in any way prejudiced should conditions change.
The amendments which were agreed to are set out in the Minute and the parties present signed this memorandum. The result of the whole matter then is that upon these changes which I have described being made in our regulations the United States agrees to drop, for the present, at all events,
the litigation in which we were previously engaged. We have, by the arrangement agreed to with Newfoundland as well as with Canada, substituted a different means of disposing of these objections for the somewhat complicated and certainly expensive one which had been directed by the tribunal in September last, and we have, in so far as Canada is concerned, reached an agreement which will be final and permanent unless conditions change in the manner which I have tried to point out. It may be that conditions will so change and that some of these objections may at some future time be renewed. If that should be so we shall then be, at all events, no worse off than we are at present, or than we would be at present if this agreement had not been entered into. The probability that such a thing will take place is, I am sanguine to think, very remote. At the present time, at all events, those m charge of the administration of affairs in the United States express themselves as entirely satisfied. Misunderstandings with regard to the meaning and application of many of our regulations have been wholly removed by the thoroughly friendly and amicable discussion which took place last week, and I have to say with regard to the whole of the discussion that from beginning to end it was carried on in a manner which one would expect on the part of the representatives of a great and thoroughly friendly nation. The attitude of the representatives of the United States throughout was of a most reasonable character. I am satisfied that they most earnestly desired to reach, if it could be possible, a final settlement of these prolonged difficulties and on each side there was in every manner the desire manifested to put an end to these century-long troubles, to make concessions where concessions were necessary and to settle by friendly conference, if such a thing could be done, matters which otherwise would have to be litigated at great expense and at great length of time before the international tribunal which had been agreed upon. It is only due, it is only justice tc the representatives of the United States that I should pay to their sincerity, in the effort which they made to meet us in our unwillingness to modify onr regulations to any greater extent than possible, the tribute which I have sought to pay to-day and to found upon that belief my confidence in stating to this House that I think this arrangement has brought to a final end and determination all the difficulties which up to this time, at any rate, have presented themselves arising out of the fisheries treaty of ninety years ago.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise with the idea of debating the question, but there are two

or three remarks which I will make if I am permitted. One blot upon the award at the Hague, in my mind and indeed, I think, in the minds of Canadians generally was the extremely unsatisfactory position in which the matter of the fishery regulations of Canada and Newfoundland was left and the extremely costly and far-away tribunal, or double tribunal, which was arranged for the final disposition of these disputes if disputes should occur. I, for my part, after listening to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Aylesworth) in his very clear exposition of the matter this afternoon, am very glad indeed that at the present time it seems we are likely to escape from both of these great inconveniences. There is no reason in the wide world why two countries lying side by side with similar interests in a great many respects and similar ideals should not get very close together and arrange on business methods and on a business basis such details of a great question as arise out of the reasonableness of the regulations framed by Canada and Newfoundland.
The result of such a meeting seems to prove that there was nothing inherently difficult in having it brought about. To take into consideration whatever might have occurred in the future in the making of fishery regulations by Canada and Newfoundland, and to feel that to every one of these regulations the United States had a right to object, and that in order to get a final determination of it there must be an appeal to a mixed tribunal and afterwards to the main tribunal itself, opened up a vista of confusion, trouble, and vexation. If by this method of agreement that has been avoided for the present, that is so much gained. As the minister pointed out, the United States retains for itself the right to object even with reference to present regulations, and, of course, retains the right to object as to future regulations. But, if once we have come together and reached an understanding upon what exists, I think a very large part of the difficulty is removed. What can be done in one case and which is shown to be both convenient and inexpensive will very likely be followed in all cases which may come thereafter. I do not think there was anything inherently wrong in the position taken on these four points by Canada. I could not help but admire, however, the perspicacity of our representatives in Washington on one of these points, namely, with reference to the Sunday fishing. Now, a bluff, common man, you know, would have said to these people down there: The Lord's day must be held in honour and your fishermen ought to be at their prayers on Sunday instead of fishing. But, perspicacious and far-seeing gentlemen such as we had there Mr. FOSTER.
preferred to put the argument on different ground; a broad humanitarian principle applied to fisheries, a sort of piscatorial humanitarian basis. Instead of asking a day of rest, and often much needed, I think, for consideration and contemplation by those who pursue the fisheries, on the means of grace and of making their lives better, it was thought best in this case to base the appeal on the ground of humanity to the fishes. It may be that in the long course of evolution the cod and herring which abound on these coasts will come to understand what the seventh day means, and maybe they will show an appreciation of it which sometimes their more highly developed pursuers lack. However, the main thing is that, however, the argument was approached the result was obtained, and the fishes will have the advantage of that one day in seven of rest, in which they can recreate themselves and get up more vigour for the six days' fight with the nets which are their common and deadly menace. As far as the purse seine fishing is concerned, that, I think, has been properly settled, and I do not see how objection could be taken to a regulation of that kind. Boarding and searching has been also settled, which, I think, was perfectly proper, for I do not see how the law could have been carried out without that power. With reference to licenses, I am afraid I did not altogether catch the meaning of it. Do I understand that licenses are not required for either Canadians or Americans with reference to (a) and (b). Distances seem to have been set within which these nets should not come, and do I understand that regulation does away with the license in regard to the first and second of the three changes that were made? Under the third agreement the United States fisherman asks for a license and receives it on the same ground, other things being equal, as the Canadians. That leads me to think that in the other two cases the license is done away with entirely.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I am afraid I do not understand the question which the hon. gentleman has propounded well enough to answer it categorically, but possibly I can strike the difficulty by explaining exactly the position of the existing regulations. In our unamended regulation, as it stood last week, it was provided that fishing by means of herring trap nets without a license from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is prohibited in the waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The same regulation exactly existed in regard to cod trap nets. The effect, therefore, was that no one could fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence for either herring or cod by trap nets unless he had obtained a license from the minister. Now, the change that has been

agreed to with regard to such fishing is simply to make the regulation read: That such fishing by means of cod trap nets or herring trap nets without a license from the minister is prohibited in the waters of the gulf except at a distance of 1,000 yards-from shore or 1,000 yards from any similar nets set from the shore.
So that, if any Canadian or United States citizen can find a location where he can set such a trap net which would be both 1,000 yards from shore and 1,000 yards from any similar trap net he can do it without a license. That is the modification. Then, upon the other point, the unamended rule prior to last week was:-
That the leader of each herring or cod trap net shall in every case extend from the shore, and any fishery officer may determine in writing or orally the length of leader which shall be used.
The fee for license at so much per fathom depended on the length of the leader. Now the change made is to repeal that rule and substitute this one. If the leader of a cod or herring trap net extends from the shore, any fishery officer may determine, in writing or orally, the length of the leader which shall be used, implying that if it does not extend from the shore no such power is given the officer to determine the length and implying, also, that trap nets may now be set with a leader not extending from the 'shore, but from a point below low water mark.
As to the requirements for a license for such trap net, nothing special is provided. It will fall within the rule I have first read, namely that a license is always required except in the case of nets set 1,000 yards from the shore.


George Eulas Foster: That clears up that point, and it seems that with reference to trap nets at this distance and under those conditions, a license is not required, but I am not sufficiently expert to know whether that will interfere very much with the primary idea in licensing, to keep those vessels under proper regulation and control. I should imagine, however, that up to a certain point it would do so, but may not to a very large extent. There is one point upon which I could not get a very clear idea. The minister spoke of a commission board for Newfoundland and one for Canada, or a board made up of one appointee from each-I am not sure which -and that before this board, if diplomatic methods did not avail in bringing the parties to an agreement, the disputed points could be taken before being taken to the Fishery Commission. Is that view correct?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Confusion no doubt has arisen from the manner in which I stated the situation under the 64
award and the situation under the agreement of last week. The award directed that existing legislation be referred to a board of experts subject to an appeal to the full tribunal when that tribunal should be reconvened. The award also recommended, but it did not direct, that to dispose of any difficulties which might arise in the future at any time, the parties should agree to constitute two fixed, permanent commissions, each to be composed of one representative from the United States, one from Canada or Newfoundland, as the case might be, and a third neutral, and that such board should deal with future cases if any should arise, as a permanent and final board, without resort to the existing tribunal at all. That recommendation has not as yet been adopted. It has not as yet been considered probably by either country ; and so far as Canada is concerned, unless future difficulties should arise, or some of these past difficulties should be renewed, there never will be any necessity for constituting such a board at all. But if one ever should be constituted, its decisions will be final.


Mr. DANIEL.: Am I correct in understanding that the advantage which the American fisherman would get from the amended regulations is that whereas formerly he was not given a license at all to fish with a trap net attached to the shore, now he is entitled to a license to engage in this form of fishing.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The provision with regard to the obtaining of a license by United States fishermen is quite distinct, that upon any American citizen applying for a berth site under the licensing provisions, such license shall be issued in the usual course for any unoccupied berth site selected by the applicant, subject to the usual rules and regulations. That is, he must go a certain distance away from an occupied berth. In a word, he must be put in exactly the same position as a British subject who applies for a license.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Did he have that privilege formerly?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I scarcely know 'how to answer that question. I do not think there is any instance in which such a license has been given to any inhabitant of the United .States. I am not aware that any application for such a license was ever made; but as a matter of legal opinion, I would not hesitate to express my view that he was always entitled to it from the day the treaty was made just as much as a British subject.


Adam Brown Crosby: Is it the intention of the government to divide the interests of Canadian fishermen and those of Newfoundland



fishermen, and let each make the best arrangement they can, independent the one of the other?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: There certainly was no intention on the part of either my colleague, Mr. Brodeur, or myself to desert Newfoundlandjn any way. On Thursday night last, when we had signed the agreement, to which, of course, Newfoundland is equally a party, substituting this new method, of dealing with existing objections for the method directed by the award, I thought and Mr. Brodeur thought, that it would be quite possible for Canada to settle, and we equally thought that there-was no likelihood of any present settlement so far as Newfoundland was concerned, and before doing anything further we sat down and discussed the situation fully with Sir Edward Morris and it was with his full concurrence and assent that Mr. Brodeur and I remained behind, he leaving for Newfoundland on Thursday evening, and we remaining in the hope that by resuming our conferences on Friday or Saturday we might be able to arrange matters so far as Canada was concerned. In that hope we have been successful. I do not think we have prejudiced Newfoundland in the least degree by what we have done, but hope we have rather helped Newfoundland to a similar settlement of its own difficulties. There has been no idea on our part of in any way deserting our sister colony should further difficulties arise in regard to which there is any necessity for joint action.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose a copy of this memorandum will be laid on the table of the House ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Certainly.


Mr. FRASER.: Is there a definition of the point below water mark where the American fisherman would have a right to drop his anchor on the coastal waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: There is no indication in that respect in the amended regulation, it is not even stated that the leader may extend from a point below low water mark, but that is implied from the fact that the existing regulation which requires it t-o extend always from shore has been repealed and taken away.


ANGLO-JAPANESE TREATY.
Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: I wish to ask the Prime Minister one or two questions respecting the Anglo-Japanese treaty which I understand came into force in July 1899 to remain in force for 12 years, but with the condition that after 11 years either of the contracting parties could give notice to terminate the treaty. Has any notice been Mr. CROSBY.
given by either of the contracting parties to terminate that treaty and if so, will the termination of the original treaty between Japan and England also terminate the subsequent convention between Canada and Japan ? Will parliament have an opportunity of discussing the matter before the treaty is renewed, if it is to be renewed.


Wilfrid Laurier: Some correspondence has passed on this subject, but I do not know whether it is in a position to be brought down. I will be able to tell my hon. friend on Monday.



WATER SUPPLY, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.

['Supply, continuing the estimates of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley).']
John Waterhouse Daniel: Has the Prime Minister observed the statements in the Ottawa Press in regard to the contaminated state of the drinking water in this city ? There is, of course, a good deal of water supplied in this building in various places, and I see that the medical health officer has advised the people of Ottawa that the city water before being consumed should be boiled in order to prevent typhoid. I do not know whether the government have taken any precautions in regard to the water supplied to this building or not, but I should think it would be a subject worthy of consideration. Have any steps been taken to prevent the supply of impure water in these buildings ?


Wilfrid Laurier: My attention has not been called to that, but I suppose when we come to Ottawa, we .must take the bad with the good.



Mr. LAKE.: Has the report of the Ottawa Improvement Commission been brought down ? Under the statute it should be brought down within the first 15 days of session, but I have not been able to obtain a copy at the distribution office.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will have to inquire as to that. I am not aware that it has been brought down, the matter
seems to have been overlooked.


George Eulas Foster: I would again ask the Prime Minister about the despatch of Sir John Thompson, for which he was to make inquiry.


Wilfrid Laurier: I had some communication with the under Secretary of State upon that point. I have not heard
since.


GEORGIAN BAY SHIP CANAL.
Mr. WHITE (North Renfrew).: I wish to call attention to an item appearing in the Montreal ' Star ' and the Ottawa ' Citizen ' of January 16. It is as follows:


ESTIMATES FOR GEORGIAN BAY CANAL READY.
[Stage Direction]
Three Millions for Back River and French River Sections to be asked.
Special to the Montreal ' Star.'
Ottawa, January 16.-That the government has under consideration, as supplementary estimates, appropriations which really mean the commencement of work upon the Georgian bay canal system was learned to-day.
It is stated that in the supplementaries is likely to be included an item of about $3,000,-000, half of it for deepening the Riviere de® Prairies, the Back river at Montreal, and the rest for the French river section of 'the work.
When questioned about this to-day Hon. William Pugsley observed:
' The whole matter is under advisement. I can make no statement till it is dealt with by the cabinet upon the return of the Minister of Finance.'	.
Meanwhile it is learned that estimates with that end in view have been prepared and will be dealt with by the cabinet council.
The appropriations which are now proposed are for portions of the work which would be * of utility even if the main scheme were not proceeded with, but at the same time they may rightfully be regarded as the beginning of the canal system.
The national character of the undertaking and its great importance as affording an additional outlet for the grain traffic of the west cannot, it is held, be over-estimated. It ranks with the Transcontinental railway as a huge undertaking of far-reaching consequences upon the transportation problem of the country.
Is it the intention of the government to .place an estimate of this amount in the supplementary estimates and is it intended to have printed some additional copies of the report which was laid on the_ table of the House two sessions ago ? This report is a very valuable one, and I have had several inquiries for it, but have been unable to procure copies, as it is out of print.
Wilfrid Laurier: To _the first question I could not give any other answer than that already given by the Minister of Public Works yesterday, that the matter is now under consideration. As to the other question, I see no reason why, if it is thought advisable, we should not have another edition of that report.


IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 47), to amend the immigration Act read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1, Canadian domicile-how acquired.
George Eulas Foster: What is the nature and purpose of the change made by this section?


Frank Oliver: I will make a little general explanation, that the particular explanation may be better understood. As my 644
hon. friend knows, last year we passed a new Immigration Act which did not alter the principles contained in the Act of 1906, but was drafted with a view to meet the exigencies arising out of the more strict administration of the Act. That is, the Act of last year was simply a more complete embodiment of the principles that had already been in force. One of the points that we found it very necessary to provide in the Act of last session was as to the rights of domicile acquired by those who were not citizens of Canada by residence in Canada. We went into that very carefully, and thought we had covered the point fairly well. But, since last session, one or two cases arose which brought the matter into question: and the two amendments which are contained in this section now before the committee are intended to meet the lack that, on the test being made, was found to exist in the section of the law as it stands. The section now before the committee is a reprint of the section passed last year with two exceptions, and the words making the change are contained in brackets. (Of course, if the amendments are agreed to, a motion will be made to strike out the brackets.) Except for these two alterations this section is word for word as it was last year. The first alteration is in the first line, and the words: ' can only be ' are substituted for the word ' is '. The reason for the change is this:	'A judge
held that, while it was perfectly clear under the reading of the Act as I had given it that Canadian domicile could be acquired in the way set out in the Act, he held that it could also be acquired in some other way which was not contemplated by the Act. Therefore, in order to meet that view of the case, we propose this change, the purpose being to restrict domicile in the operation of the Act to the definition we give in the Act. The second amendment is to provide for the case of a person who entered Canada previous to the passing of the Act of last year, but who had not resided in the country for three years. The Act of last session only contemplated that a person acquired domicile by residing in the country for three years. Now, the person who entered the country before the passing of the Act, who had not been three years in the country, under a strict reading of the Act as the judge applied it, was found by him not to have domicile, which, of course, was not the intent. So, this change is made to grant domicile to those who entered Canada before the passing of the Act of last year, but who had not been three years in the country at the time of the passing of the Act. These are the two amendments to the section, and the purpose is as I have stated, and the reason for the amendments is that the question has come up in court and the judge has

ruled to indicate a lack- in the section as it was passed last year.


Mr. McKENZIE (Cape Breton).: I desire to get some information from the minister in connection with the Immigration Act. I suppose that, as a lawyer, I should know something about the Act, but I do not know very much about it. There are cases in my constituency in regard to which I would like to get some information from the minister. For instance, if an Assyrian comes to Canada and buys a property and settles down as a resident of, say, the county pf Cape Breton from which I come, and after a year or so of residence in the country wishes to bring his family from Assyria to settle with him in Canada, what are the conditions upon which he can take his family into Canada, provided they are free from any of the diseases that would prevent them from coming under the Act?


Frank Oliver: The conditions will be found in the order in council 926 passed under the terms of the Act. The requirement is that any Asiatic coming to Canada must have in his possession the sum of $200. So the members of the family of the Assyrian that my hon. friend mentions would need to have that amount of money in their possession before they would be entitled to land in Canada.


Mr. DOHERTY.: If I understand the minister, his purpose in this section is to provide that there shall be no other method of acquiring a Canadian domicile except the method provided here.


Frank Oliver: That is the idea.


Charles Joseph Doherty: What is the effect of that? If he attains the purpose he says he desires to attain, I would like to ask him whether a child that is born in Canada after the passing of this Act, of a father domiciled in Canada, will not by that fact have acquired a domicile here?


Frank Oliver: Of course he will.


Charles Joseph Doherty: But your Act says that the only way by which a Canadian domicile can be acquired after the passing of this Act is by a residence of so many years after having been landed in Canada. Here is a man who was never landed in Canada at all, and it is a very serious thing if this statute is going to do away with all the methods by which domicile is acquired by common llaw. I would like to ask the minister, is it the intention; to modify the salutary rule that a wife's domicile is where her husband's is? Because I think under the wording of this statute, if the husband comes to this country and complies with all the requirements that are laid down here, he will have acquired a domicile in Canada; is it the Intention that his wife, who did not come Mr. OLIVER,
with him at that time, shall have no domicile in Canada until she has done all these things?


Frank Oliver: That is the express intent of the Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Does the minister think it is a desirable thing that we should enact, in contravention, I think, of the universally-accepted rule, not only of our own law but of international law, that the domicile of a wife shall no longer be where her husband's is?


Frank Oliver: That is a matter for the committee to consider. I am merely stating what the law is.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The minister is putting this Bill before the committee, and he is asking us to endorse it, and I am pointing out to him the far-reaching effects of it; and I think we are entitled to a statement from him whether he thinks there are sufficient reasons, and what they are, that justify us in making such a great modification in the general rules of law, for the purpose of this special Act. Moreover, I confess that it seems to me that the wording is such as to do some things which the minister says he does not intend. For instance, he lays down that a domicile, can only be acquired in a particular way. Now if you understand that according to the latter, I think a child who is born in Canada hereafter, who has never landed in this country, will never have a domicile here. Will not the fact of his being born here of parents domiciled here, not give him a domicile here?


Mr. BUREAU.: He is a Canadian by birth.


Charles Joseph Doherty: One of the ways by which, under the general law, one acquires a domicile, is that the domicile of the child is at the domicile of his father. The child when he is born acquires his domicile at the place where the father was domiciled. This Act says that a Canadian domicile can only be acquired by living here three years after you have landed here.


Jacques Bureau: That means a foreigner. A British subject by birth does not come under this Act. Supposing he goes away to a foreign country and, without taking the oath of allegiance there, comes back here still a British subject, he would not come under that Act. He would enjoy his privilege just the same as if he had not gone away.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is what I want to get at. I understood that under the Act as it previously stood there were certain methods by which a domicile could be acquired, but that Act did not say that a domicile

acquired in any other way would not be a domicile under that Act. The wording of this Act now seems to say that a Canadian domicile can only be acquired by doing these particular things. It may be said in regard to a child born of parents domiciled here that it is not a question of acquiring a domicile, but a question of a domicile of origin. But I do insist upon the importance of the consideration that under the working of this Act you will do away with all the rules by which the domicile of classes of persons dependent upon or connected immediately with others, (is determined; with the first result, that you will deny to the wife the domicile that shall be her husband's by right, because she personally has not done some things that he has done. In the same way, you interfere with the general rules for making domicile of minors with their guardians or tutors. Are all these rules going to be set aside, and when a tutor or a guardian has acquired domicile here in Canada, are you going to shut out the minor because he is not domiciled under this Act? Yet if you say that the only way by which domicile can be acquired is by an individual coming personally and residing here, you will produce that result.


Frank Oliver: In regard to the objection of my hon. friend that the child born in Canada would not have acquired Canadian domicile, I may say that this section only applies to the definition of domicile as acquired by those who are not Canadian citizens. The Act provides what shall constitute a Canadian citizen, and that naturally provides that a person born in Canada shall be a Canadian citizen. The purpose of making a definition of the word ' domicile ' and of the words ' Canadian citizen,' is to enable us to carry out the intent which I understood was in the mind of parliament at the time this Act was passed, so as to define clearly and drastically, if necessary, the rights which should be derived by relationships between people. My hon. friend finds fault with this clear and close, or drastic, definition of domicile. There is no definition of domicile set out in the statute law. My hon. friend is aware of that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As far as I know there is not.


Frank Oliver: There is no definition of domicile in the statutory law, except here, but we found that in the administration of this Act this drastic provision, being the expression of the mind of parliament as I believe, it was necessary that there should be a statutory definition of domicile so that we would know, and so that the immigrant would know exactly what his rights were and what they were not, and so that there would be no question about where the line
was drawn. We have, of course, very extraordinary legislation. The whole Act is extraordinary, its purpose is extraordinary and this undertaking to define the meaning of domicile by statute is an extraordinary attempt, but we believe it is rendered necessary by the exigencies of the administration of the Act, that is the exigency of carrying out the will of parliament with regard to the restriction of undesirable immigration.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I understand, the purpose of this section is to create a situation where a man coming here and acquiring domicile under this Act and doing everything which he is called upon to do for that purpose, his wife and children, having been left behind him and coming on later, are liable to be excluded because they have not got a domicile.


Frank Oliver: Precisely.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If that is the purpose of the minister and he has it carried, of course, I have nothing further to. say, but it seems to me that there are some pretty weighty considerations against our adopting a definition of domicile that will be found in every case to produce that position.


Frank Oliver: I am not defending the position in any way. I am merely explaining the position that was taken by parliament when the Act was passed and the position taken by parliament when the Act was passed, was that it was necessary and desirable, in order to exclude undesirable immigrants, that each immigrant should stand on his own merits and be considered as an individual and not as a member of a family.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. minister is seeking by this amendment to change the position that was taken by parliament in the previous Act. Otherwise, why is he amending the previous Act? I understand the minister to say that the holding of the courts was that the position that parliament took in the previous Act did not operate farther than to create a situation where any person who came within the definition of the Act was entitled to claim that he had a domicile, but that it did not operate to prevent people who, without aid of the previous Act had, under the provisions of the common law, a domicile, from claiming their domicile. That is the interpretation which the court put upon the declaration of parliament in the previous Act, and that, it seems to me, represents what the position of parliament was when it passed the previous Act. The minister is asking parliament to change its position on that subject for the purpose of excluding the idea that any body is domiciled in Canada except persons who have met the requirements laid down in this particular Act, although the effect of doing so will be to create a situ-

ation where you will forcibly separate husband and wife, parents and children. Of course, that is a new position that the minister is asking parliament to take. For myself, I cannot pretend to be as familiar with the difficulties that may arise with regard to excluding undesirable immigrants as the minister, or those who are engaged in the operation of this Act, but I must say that for my part I would require to be satisfied of some very urgent necessity indeed and to have demonstrated to me the practical impossibility of otherwise protecting us from undesirable immigration before I would deem it desirable to lay down a rule of this kind which is not only liable to produce, but which the minister tells us and which his words clearly show it is intended to produce, the position which I have pointed out.


Mr. DEVLIN.: Do I understand that the hon. gentleman would suggest that there should be a subsection similar to that in the civil court of lower Canada that the domicile of the husband be the domicile of the wife?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That would be suggesting the contrary of the provision. I am objecting to the provision because the effect of it is to make it absolutely clear that a wife who comes here as an immigrant will have no right whatever to claim, that because her husband is domiciled here she has a right to do what the law in most countries imposes upon her as an obligation, that is to follow her husband to the domicile that he has chosen. The idea of this Act is to step in and say: No, madam, you shall not do it. Of course, there will be very little purpose in the minister's provision if he were willing to state that it should be subject to the exception made by the general law. I understand that the minister's reason is that he wants to make this provision as a derogation from the general law..


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend says that this clause would prevent a wife from coming in after her husband had acquired domicile to enjoy the privileges which he only enjoyed.
In section 2 there is a definition of Canadian citizenship and it says:	' Canadian citizen '
means (1) A person born in Canada who has not become an alien; (2) a British subject who has Canadian domicile; or (3) a person naturalized under the laws of Canada who has not subsequently become an alien or lost Canadian domicile.


Charles Joseph Doherty: What is the section?


Jacques Bureau: That is the old Act, section 2. There is a proviso:
Provided that for the purpose of this Act a woman who has not been landed in Canada shall not be held to have acquired Canadian Mr. DOHERTY.
citizenship by virtue of her husband being a Canadian citizen; neither shall a child who has not been landed in Canada be held to have acquired Canadian citizenship through its father or mother being a Canadian citizen.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There a wife is excluded from claiming any right to Canadian citizenship. Here we are asked to go farther and declare that she is not entitled to claim to be a person having a Canadian domicile, though, as far as I know, not only by the general law of Canada, but, I do not think I am mistaken in saying, by the rules of private international law, or the conflict of laws, she will be, by the civilized countries of the world, denied the right to claim that she is domiciled anywhere else.


Jacques Bureau: For the purpose of this Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I quite concede that, but you are going to place that woman in a position where for no purpose, in the country of her original domicile, will she be recognized as domiciled there and for the purpose of coming into Canada in the fulfilment of her obligation to follow her husband wherever he is domiciled she will not be considered as domiciled here. I have said that I do not pretend to be familiar with the difficulties that present themselves in the operation of preventing undesirable immigration, but I do think that when this House is asked to go so far as that in contravention of a principle which is so generally accepted and one which is recognized throughout the civilized world as resting upon the highest considerations of public policy the minister should put before us what are the difficulties in the administration of this Act which make it impossible or exceedingly difficult to keep out undesirable immigration without the aid of a provision of this kind.


Frank Oliver: I think the mind of parliament can fairly be considered to have been expressed by the context rather than by the individual words.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Does the minister contend that the court which interpreted this did not pay to the context the attention that ought to be paid to it? The authoritative determination of what was in the mind of parliament is shown by what the Act said, and the court is the only source from which you can get an authoritative determination of what the mind of parliament was. It is the first time I have ever heard the suggestion that there was any other method open to us for discovering the mind of parliament than by looking to what parliament expressed.


Frank Oliver: I think my hon. friend is very wide in his reasoning. I think there are sections of the most revered book in

the world that might be read literally without expressing the intention, unless the context were taken into consideration.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Surely the minister does not mean to intimate that the judge did not take the context into consideration. The court that pronounced upon this is entitled to the assumption that it applied these rules of interpretation which enable us to ascertain precisely what parliament did express. Of course, one of the most elementary of these rules is that the court should look at the context, interpret the Act as a whole, and interpret each disposition of it by the other disposition. If the court did its duty, as we must assume it did, we have an authoritative determination that the mind of parliament expressed in the Act was in the sense that the court found. What the minister does now is to ask us to change our mind.


Frank Oliver: That is a matter of opinion. The court may have the opinion that the mind of parliament was expressed in the words contained in the statute, but if my hon. friend will permit me to give my opinion, it is that it did not express the idea as clearly as may be that the intention was that domicile should only be as defined by this Act. That is as I read the context, and as a member of parliament, perhaps my view of the matter is just as good as that of a judge on the bench.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then, if, as the minister says, the statute does express the idea, why not leave it as it is? If, on the other hand, there is need for this amendment, it is because, as the law stands to-day, a person can acquire domicile otherwise than as stated in this case. And the minister is before us asking to enact this section, which has no reason for existence at all, unless it is true that without it a person can acquire a domicile in some other way than that specified here. If the minister is entitled to have his judgment stand on a level with the judgment of the courts, perhaps the rest of us in parliament are erditled to claim that what we meant should be interpreted in accordance with what we said. The change does seem to me to involve such serious consequence with regard to the general law of domicile that those who propose it should lay before us very strong reasons, so that we may intelligently pronounce whether or not it is necessary to make such a change.


Frank Oliver: There is no other intention than to place all the reasons before the House. I agree with my hon. friend that the opinion of the judge is quite as much entitled to consideration as my opinion, or the opinion of any other member. But we are here to exercise our judgment and take our responsibility as to what we are doing. I am placing before the House
the view that the proper carrying out of the intent of the Act, and taking into consideration the decision of the judge as to the meaning of the word, requires that this amendment shall be made. It is for the House to say whether it agrees with that view or not. As to the reasons; we have found it necessary in the administration of the Act, in carrying out what we believed to be the mind of parliament, and in order not to do any injustice to any person, that we should define ' Canadian citizenship,' which is something which is not defined anywhere else, and that we should define ' domicile,' which is something not defined anywhere else. The reason we have to make these definitions is that we may not do injustice in such cases as are dealt with in section 3 of the Immigration Act of last session, which is practically a re-enactment of the Act passed in 1906. My hon. friend will agree that that at any rate expresses the mind of parliament, and parliament says distinctly:-
No immigrant, passenger or other person, unless he is a Canadian citizen or has Canadian domicile, shall be permitted to land in Canada, or in case of having landed in or entered Canada shall be permitted to remain there, or, who belongs to any of the following classes hereinafter called prohibited classes.
That expressed the mind of parliament since 1906. In the Act of last year, in order to limit the hitherto unlimited application of this we introduced this exception in regard to Canadian citizenship, and in regard to Canadian domicile. In order to limit the formerly unlimited application of this provision, we thought it was right that there should be these exceptions ; but in order that we should make exceptions and not contravene the principle which has been in the mind of parliament since 1906, we had to define both Canadian citizenship and Canadian domicile, and I submit that it was carrying out the intention of parliament that these should be defined in a restricted and limited sense, and it would not have been carrying out the mind of parliament had we defined domicile as the hon. gentleman has suggested.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not want to debate the question whether the mind of parliament last year should necessarily control absolutely the mind of parliament this year, particularly when we are asked to be controlled not by something expressed but by something that was in the mind of parliament and not expressed. The hon. minister says that his purpose is to avoid the injustice which would be done if we gave a less restrictive interpretation to section 3 of the old Act. The section applies only to persons who have neither Canadian citizenship nor Canadian domicile, and the minister admits that once that we pass this Bill, there are persons who have

Canadian domicile to-day who will not have it to-morrow. There are in that section certain provisions which exclude classes of persons whom it might be desirable to exclude even if they had a Canadian domicile ; but on the other hand, under this section, any person, who has not a Canadian domicile, is for instance excluded if he is blind. It is necessary for our protection that we should enact a law that if a man comes here and acquires a domicile and his wife unfortunately should be blind, we should shut her out for ever. Still that would be the effect of this measure.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
Frank Oliver: It would seem from the remarks of the gentlemen who have spoken that there is a misapprehension as to the purpose of this law. This law is for the purpose of excluding certain classes of oeople for certain reasons and the desire is that this intent shall he carried out. If it is not the desire of the Committee that people should be excluded, the law could easily be amended, but as the case stands at present, we have a law which was passed last year, following up another law passed three years before, and we now propose to make certain minor amendments in detail in order to carry out more completely the intent of the law that was passed last session, and hon. members forthwith com-olain about the fundamental principle of the existing law. That is not the question

before the committee, the question is the amendment of this law on the lines suggested. If any hon. members think this exclusion law should not be on the statute-book, it would be fair for them to place themselves on record as of that mind. It is hardly fair to take the opportunity of a proposed amendment to the details of a certain law to go upon record as criticising and objecting to the fundamental principle of the law as it stands.
As to the point that my hon. friend mentions, he asks for information why certain requirements should be made in the case of Asiatics. I am bound to say that the question has nothing to do with the amendments that are before the committee, but as my hon. friend asks the question, it is perfectly right to give the answer. My hon. friend is well aware, as is every member of this House, of the difficulties that have faced the government of Canada in dealing with the question of Asiatic immigration. He knows that very, very drastic and very, very extreme measures have had to be taken to counteract that immigration. Those	measures had to
differ in regard to the different classes of people who came to the country. In regard to one nationality,	the Japanese,	an
arrangement was made with the Japanese government. In regard to the Chinese, a head-tax of $500 was placed upon their coming into the country. And, in the case of another class of people whose coming to Canada was considered by the people of Canada-certainly by the people more especially affected by that immigration-to be a very serious detriment to the country, the condition was met by requiring the possession of $200 in cash by each Asiatic immigrant other than those arranged for as being Chinese or Japanese. It must be obvious to my hon. friend and the House that when we have made arrangements in regard to the Japanese and in regard to the Chinese it is not desirable that we should make a special prohibition or special impediment to the coming of certain other classes of Asiatics. It was not considered to be sound public policy. It was thought very much better that the requirements should embrace ' Asiatics ' and unfortunately for the constituents of my hon. friends, Syrians are 'Asiatics.' It is a case in which a very important national policy was given effect to. It was necessary that effective action should be taken, and it is, in my judgment, just as necessary that there should not be any exceptions made to the action that was taken.
On section 2, duty of officer to send complaint to minister regarding undesirable immigrants.


Frank Oliver: The committee will notice that the only amendment is in the insertion of the words ' or entering/ The reason for this amendment also is a judicial decision. The decision was that the person who came into Canada before the passing of the Act of last year was not * landed ' within the meaning of the Act, and therefore, was prohibited from remaining in Canada. With all deference to my hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Doherty) that was not the intent of the Act, and it is not considered to be fair or just. And it is to relieve that situation that we desire to have these words inserted.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I appreciate the deference of the minister, but I was not aware that I had committed myself to any opinion with regard to the significance of the word ' entering ' in this section.
On section 3, penalty for rejected or deported person remaining in or re-entering Canada.


Frank Oliver: This amendment is a change from the Act as it now stands. It was considered, in looking over the Act, that a fixed penalty of two years' imprisonment was not in proportion to the offence, that, in fact, it was clearly an error ; and we desire to correct the error by making the punishment so that there shall be discretion in the hands of the magistrate and that the punishment shall not be more severe than the offence warrants. Therefore, we propose to insert in the section the words ' on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year.'


Mr. JAMESON.: This provides that any one rejected or deported under this Act who returns to Canada shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year? Would not that leave the parson upon whom sentence was passed the option of paying a penalty or removing from the country ? In other words, if he were convicted for a certain term, might not he remain in the country under restraint for the term of his conviction?


Frank Oliver: The idea is that having been ordered out and refusing to go, or coming back when he was forbidden, the only remedy was to punish him. The mere ordering him out again could hardly meet the case.


Mr. ROCHE.: Has the minister had any such case as that?


Frank Oliver: I do not know that we have.
On section 4-deportation.


Frank Oliver: In this case we have not reprinted the wdiole section, as the proposal is merely to add certain words to provide that where a person is deported the de-

portation shall take place under such conditions as are ordered by the officer in charge. It is believed that, instead of the matter being in the discretion of the transportation company which is carrying out the deportation the transportation company should be under the direction of the officer in charge of immigration. The Act reads that he shall be reconveyed ' by the transportation company which carried him to the place in Canada where he was rejected, or where he is being retained for deportation, to the place in the country whence he was brought, or to the country of his birth or citizenship.' That leaves it discretionary with the transportation company as to the accommodation to be given to the returning immigrant, and, in order that that should not be entirely in the discretion of the transportation company, the words are added ' as may be directed by the officer in charge.'
On section 5,-penalty on transportation company refusing to return person ordered to be deported.


Frank Oliver: The first amendment is merely verbal but the second and third amendments in the section are important. As the explanation underneath points out, it is to make clear that the transportation company must take the deported person not only to the boundary of the country from which he came, but to the place in the country from whence he came. In order that there may be no question about it, the second amendment is made to read:
' As may be directed by the immigration officer.	*


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand the intention of the second amendment is to give the immigration official the right to decide whether the man shall be taken to the country he came from, or to the country of his birth or citizenship. Would it not be fair that the individual deported should have some choice in that matter?


Frank Oliver: The board directs that he shall be taken to the place in the country from whence he came, or to that of his birth or citizenship as may be directed by such order. It does leave discretion with the board. But I think it is right that it should be done, because we have difficulties with people who come through the United States from other countries, and some times it is possible to return them through the United States and sometimes it is not, according to the way the United States authorities administer their law.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Supposing a Ruthenian embarks at Liverpool for this country in one of the Allan or Canadian Pacific Railway steamers, and after having arrived here, he is ordered to be deported. Can Mr. OLIVER.
this board order the steamship line, not only to take him back to Liverpool, but to make them see that he is conveyed as far as Ruthenia from whence he came in the first place?


Frank Oliver: If in Ruthenia or Galicia he bought a ticket to Canada from the agent of the steamship company, yes; but if he had only bought the ticket to Liverpool, and then bought another ticket from Liverpool, of course the company could be compelled to return him to Liverpool.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not suppose the board would be so unreasonable as to do that, but under the wording of the section they would apparently have a right in the case suggested to order that man to be taken back to Ruthenia from Liverpool.


Frank Oliver: I do not think that the words bear that construction. But there is no doubt that in order to secure substantial justice, that authority has to be placed in the hands of the board. I do not think there is any other way but to give such discretion and authority to the board. .
On section 6, subsection 1,-prosecutions,


Frank Oliver: The amendments here, as will be noted, provide for a rather greater responsibility on the judicial side than in the present Act; and also provide that proceedings may be taken not only against the transportation company, but against the individual. Under the former Act proceedings might- only be taken against the company, and it was thought better, while that might cover all cases, specifically to state that proceedings could be taken against an individual as well as against a company.
On paragraph 4, lien on property of transportation companies.


Frank Oliver: These amendments are in the line of the amendment in the first section, that is to say to provide where it is either a person or a company.


Clarence Jameson: 
Frank Oliver: No, we have not found it necessary. The transportation companies have conformed to the Act substantially.


Mr. DEPUTY  ISPEAKER@: Shall I report the Bill?	[DOT]


Frank Oliver: The amendments are marked by brackets. I do not know whether

a formal motion is necessary or not to have these brackets stricken out.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I understand it is not necessary.


John Waterhouse Daniel: If you are going to take out the brackets you. might correct the spelling of the word ' gaol ' in the ninth line on the 2nd page. It is spelled ' goal ' instead of ' gaol.'
Bill reported.


MANUFACTURE OF WHITE PHOSPHORUS MATCHES.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient, in connection with Bill 10 now before this House, to provide for the prohibition of the manufacture and importation of matches made with white phosphorus; to empower the commissioner of patents on petition to fix terms for the use of any process patented at the time of the passing of this Act for the manufacture of matches without white phosphorus, other than matches intended to strike only on a surface specially prepared for the purpose; to provide for the inspection of any place where it is suspected that matches made with white phosphorus may be found; to examine any receptacle or place in which it is suspected that such matches may be; to authorize the Governor in Council to make such orders and regulations as may be necessary; and to fix penalties for infractions of the Act.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, as the members of the committee may not be familiar with the subject with which this resolution has to do, and with the provisions of the Bill which is based on the resolution, I hope the committee will allow me a little time to explain the objects of the proposed legislation, and to outline the purpose that it is hoped to serve. I should like to point out in the first place that this legislation is not intended to embarrass in any way any existing industry. It is rather aimed exclusively at the stamping out of a disease connected with a certain industry which has been found in other countries to be of a very serious and, I may say, hideous nature. The disease is spoken of popularly as ' phossy,' and scientifically as phosphorous necrosis or poisoning from phosphorous. This disease is one which has been known for a great many years in different countries ; in fact, for something like seventy years the countries of Europe have been familiar with it. One after the other, they have found it necessary to pass legislation to protect the workers who are engaged in the match-making industry from the evils of it. Perhaps I might in a casual way, indicate to the committee in my own words what the nature of this disease is. It has been found where matches have been made of phorphorous that in the
making of these matches, the phosphorous fumes not infrequently attack the teeth of the workers and sometimes very minute particles of phosphorus also find their way to the teeth and, going through the cava-ties of the teeth, work their way to the jawbones which become festered with the result that little by little they break away and the workers loss their jaws altogether.
I can describe more fully the nature of this disease by reading to the committee the definition given of the malady by the chairman of a commission appointed in England some ten or eleven years ago to look into the matter. I have here the report of a commission which was appointed by the British government in 1899 to report to the Secretary of the Home Department on the use of phosphorous in the manufacture of .lucifer matches. It is by Prof. T. E. Thorpe, principal chemist of the government laboratory; Prof. Thomas Oliver, physician to the Royal Infirmary, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and Dr. George Gunning-ham, Senior Dental Surgeon to the London Hospital. These gentlemen were appointed by the British government to look carefully into this industrial disease, and they reported at considerable length upon it in the volume which I have here. The definition of the disease given by Dr. Oliver, is as follows :
The malady that is dreaded is phosphorus necrosis. The presence of decayed teeth predisposes a match maker to the disease, for the phosphorus fumes penetrate carious teeth and readily induce a periostitis or acute inflammation of the covering of the jawbone. The gum becomes swollen, and both it' and the jawbone painful. Sooner or later pus forms, and although the tooth, or the teeth, are extracted, the pain continues, but in a less severe form. The inflammation gradually extends to the bone, which undergoes a process of slow destruction. For months pus keeps oozing out into the mouth in minute quantities, some of which is swallowed, and tends to induce chronic toxaemia. By means of the use of antiseptic mouth washes the morbid process gradually ceases by a piece of dead bone being thrown off, or the decayed bone is removed by surgical operation, when the patient recovers with or without facial deformity.
Tlie disease bas recently been made the subject of a very full and complete investigation in the United States. It has been investigated there by Mr. John J. Andrews who is secretary of the American Association for Labour Legislation, and who is one of the best known of the younger economists of the United States. Mr. Andrews, in a pamphlet which was published >a short time ago in regard to American industrial diseases, a pamphlet which has been distributed by the American Association of Labour Legislation, gives an account of the nature of this disease, and I will read it also to the committee because it is rather

important that the members should realize the full significance of the industrial ill to which the workers in match factories are liable in order to appreciate the necessity for this legislation, Mr. Andrews says:
Poisoning from phosphorus has many evil effects. Some are local, others general. The general effect most frequently noted in cases of chronic phosphorus poisoning is anaemia. The daily breathing of air laden with phosphorus fumes and continual contact with the particles of phosphorus result in a gradual lowering of vitality, which in turn invites other forms of disease. This is one of the most prevalent and most serious results of phosphorus poisoning. But such general effects are much more difficult of actual determination and consequently the local effects which are more conspicuous receive the greater attention.
Phosphorus necrosis, the peculiar lccal form of the disease, is caused by the absorption of phosphorus through the teeth or gums. The generally accepted theory is that minute particles of the poison enter, usually, through the cavities of decayed teeth, setting up an inflammation which, if not quickly arrested, extends along the jaws, causing the teeth to loosen and drop out, and that jawbones slowly decompose and pass away in the form of nauseating pus, which sometimes breaks through the neck in the form of an abcess or, if not almost continually washed out, oozes into the mouth where it mixes with the saliva and is swallowed. '
Treatment is largely preventive, but when the disease is once established a serious surgical operation is often the only means of arresting the process of decay. In many instances of poisoning it is necessary to remove an entire jaw, and in several cases both jaws have been removed at a single operation. A number of cases of necrosis have resulted in death.
It is the awfulness of the disease and the ease with which it can be prevented that has led many countries where the effects of the disease and the means for its prevention have been studied, to do away with the disease forever.
t Mr. BLAIN. Are there any cases in Canada such as the minister has described?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There have been such cases and I intend to cite several of them. 4. few years ago the French government made a state monopoly of the match business and it was found that a great many engaged in the making of matches con-tractecl the disease and became a charge on the state. The authorities became anxious, and the government began to make inquiry to see if some substitute could not be found to take the place of phosphorus, and what is known as sesqui sulphite was discovered-by two French chemists and was adopted by the French government. It is an interesting commentary on industrial conditions as regulated by public and private interests respectively that when the government found itself face to face with having


William Lyon Mackenzie King: to use part of the revenue which it was getting from the match industry to maintain some of the unfortunate workers in that industry, it undertook to provide a remedy, but that individual manufacturers, who had no responsibility for the loss occasioned to the worker, continued existing processes without seeking to adopt any substitute for the poisonous material. It was found by the French government that a material quite as good as phosphorus could be used in the making of matches, and having adopted it, other countries which had experience of this frightful disease later followed the example, and gradually enacted laws prohibiting altogether the making of matches with this poisonous substance.
In 1901 there was formed in Europe the International Labour Association, the purpose of which is to bring about, if possible, uniformity in the industrial laws of the different countries of Europe. Speaking on industrial affairs in this House, I have had occasion to point out that this is an age not merely of competition as between industry and _ industry and locality and locality within a country, but as between the industries of one country and the industries of another country, and that we are fast approaching the day when industrial competition will be not above that of one nation with another nation, but of one continent with another continent. Those who have looked deeply into industrial matters have come to see that any regulation to be really effective must spread over the entire area of competition, and that if one nation is going to improve the condition of its workers it. can only do so effectively by the nation adjoining it, or competing with it, adopting the same standards. This association, founded in Paris, now has its headquarters in Switzerland, and it was founded in recognition of this fact. It was formed with a view of bringing about uniformity in the industrial laws of Europe and the industrial laws of the American continent as well. Branches have been established in the different countries of Europe and in the United States, and the association publishes from month to month bulletins in which the labour laws of the different countries are classified, and it holds annual meetings at which subjects of general interest are discussed. One of the main subjects taken up by the association at an early date was this question of phosphorus necrosis. Through the instrumentality of the government of Switzerland special meetings of the members of this association were called at Berne in 1905 and 1906 to consider the question of the several countries adopting uniform legislation on this occupational disease known as ' phosphorous necrosis,' and eleven different countries were repre-

sented at the latter gathering. On that occasion a convention was drawn up to which the different nations were asked to become parties, and which provided that each country should prevent the manufacture of matches from white phosphorus, and also prohibit the importation into it of any matches made from white phosphorus. I have here a memorandum on the international conference held at Berne in September, 1906. This_ memorandum was prepared by the British government, and it. gives an account of the convention which was held to deal with this subject, and it points out that the following powers: France, Germany, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark, Luxemburg and Italy decided to enter into an agreement on the subject between themselves and to sign the following convention:-
International Convention on the subject of the Prohibition of the use of White (Yellow) Phosphorus in the manufacture of matches.
His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia; His Majesty the King of Denmark; the President of the French Republic; His Majesty the King of Italy; His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Luxemburg, Duke ol Nassau; Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands; the Swiss Federal Council, desiring to facilitate the development of the industrial protection of work-people by the adoption of common provisions, have resolved to conclude with this object a convention respecting the use of white (yellow) phosphorus in the manufacture of matches, and have appointed the following to be their plenipotentiaries; that is to say:-
(Here is given a list of the plenipotentiaries.)
who after having communicated their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following articles:-
Article 1.
The high contracting parties bind themselves to prohibit in their respective territories, the manufacture, importation and sale of matches, which contain white (yellow) phosphorus.
Article 2.
It is incumbent upon each of the contracting states to take the administrative measures necessary, to ensure the strict execution of the terms of the present convention within their respective territories.	,
Each government shall communicate to the others through the diplomatic channel the laws and regulations which exist or shall hereafter come into force in their country with regard to the subject matter of the present convention as well as the reports on the manner in which the said laws and regulations are applied.
Article 3.
The present convention shall only apply to a colony, possession or protectorate when a notice to this effect shall have been given on its behalf by the government of the mother country to the Swiss Federal Council.


Mr. CROCKET.: Is Great Britain a party to the convention?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was just going to refer to the attitude of Great Britain. In 1899 the British government appointed a commission to go into the whole question. That commission is the one whose report I have referred to. That report recommended numerous regulations thought sufficient to meet the evil, and the British government adopted these regulations and. had them put in force. When this association met in 1906, these regulations were on trial, and the British government did not then see its way, on that account, to become a party to the convention. However, in 1908, the British government, having found these regulations insufficient, decided to give its adherence to the convention and did join the other countries to which I have referred, later Austria followed the example of Britain, so that with the exception of Norway, Sweden and Russia, which have regulations of their own, all the principal countries of Europe have become parties to an agreement which prohibits the use of white phosphorus in the making of matches and which prohibits also the importation of matches made with white phosphorus. Not only that, but since the British government became a party to the convention, the following possessions of Britain have given their adherence to it: The Orange River Colony, Cyprus, British East Africa, Gibraltar, Malta, Mauritius, Seychelles, Southern Nigeria, Leeward Islands and Fiji. Also the following French possessions:	The Somali Coast, Reunion,
Madagascar and its dependencies, the French settlements in Oceania and New Caledonia, Tunis and the Netherlands Indies.	.
In this connection it may interest the House to know how this government came to consider this particular measure. When the British government became a party to this convention, the Secretary of State for the Colonies sent a communication to the Governor General of the Dominion, informing him of that fact, and asked the Canadian government whether this country would adhere to the conven-[DOT]tion. In January, 1909, the following despatch was sent to Lord Grey:-
I have the honour to request Your Excellency to inform your ministers tliat,^ an Act having been passed last session by the imperial parliament to prohibit the manufacture, sale and importation of matches made with white phosphorus, a copy of which is inclosed, His Majesty's government have now notified the adhesion of the United Kingdom to the Berne Convention of the 26th September, 1906, on the subject of the prohibition of the use of white phosphorus in the manufacture of matches.
I shall be glad to learn in due course whe-

tlier your government desire that a notification of their adhesion should he made under article 3 of the convention.
Another despatch was sent in August of this last year stating that the British government were anxious to know as soon as possible whether the Dominion government proposed to give its adhesion to the convention.
Before sending any reply, the government deemed it desirable to get the fullest information possible as to the necessity for any such legislation in this country. The first step taken was to communicate with the authorities in every province in order to ascertain whether any legislation for the purpose of protecting their workers in match factories existed therein and also what was the extent of the industry, and whether there was any need for further legislation on this matter. Mr. Ackland, Deputy Minister of the Department of Labour, communicated with the various provincial secretaries and the replies he received indicated that in none of the provinces was there any legislation protecting workers against the particular disease, phosphorus necrosis. Having obtained these replies, the department directed two of its officers, Mr. Dubreuil and Mr. McNiven to investigate and find out whether there were aiiy instances of phosphorous necrosis m the Dominion; and later on I shall submit the substance of their report to the House.
I have given a short account of the various stages so that the House may see clearly the genesis of this measure. It had its beginning in the request of the British government to be informed as to whether Canada would become party to the convention. But the British government did not ask the Canadian government or parliament to consider a measure of this kind until it had itself passed an Act dealing with the evil. The Act of the British parliament is intituled: An Act to prohibit the manufacture and sale of matches made with white phosphorus, and was passed December 21, 1908.
And the Bill I have introduced, is, as nearly as possible, a reproduction of the British Act, which is the source from which this proposed legislation has been inspired.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was there any demand from any of the health associations of Canada respecting this matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not that I am aware of and the surprising feature of the whole business is the lack of knowledge which there seems to have been as to the extent of this evil in this country. Had the attention of the federal government not been drawn to it, this disease might have continued to spread in this country. Certainly one might have expected some of Mr. KING.
the provincial inspectors to have come across and reported upon cases of this kind, but not one seems to have done so.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the hon. minister any evidence that the disease does exist?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have; and as I said a moment ago, I shall give it to the House m a few minutes. The reason I have spoken at some length of the genesis of this measure, is because an entirely erroneous impression has been spread throughout this country as to its origin. No doubt hon. gentlemen opposite have seen in many of our daily papers the statement that this legislation, in some indirect way, was inspired by the Match Trust in the United States. As this seems to be the impression, and as something may be said to the same effect later, I want to refer for a moment to legislation m the United States and the alleged connection of the Match Trust in that country with this measure. I have here the article to which I have referred and which has been copied into the newspapers throughout Canada. It reads as follows:-


HON. MACKENZIE KING AND THE MATCH TRUST.
[Stage Direction]
The Bill he introduced in Parliament looks suspicious.
The Minister lias placed the Government in an Embarrassing Position-The Bill would Prohibt Manufacture of White Phosphorus Matches.
Hon. Mackenzie King, Minister of Labour, has, through inexperience, it is alleged, placed the government and himself in a most embarrassing position, from which they will have the greatest difficulty in extricating themselves. It is asserted that the Bill he has introduced into parliament to prohibit the manufacture and importation of matches made with white phosphorus is simplv part of a scheme which had its origin in the United States to promote and aid the Match Trust. The Match Trust controls the patents governing the process of making matches with materials other than with white phosphorus.
Misplaced Zeal.	-
It seems that Mr. King, while looking, around for legislation, stumbled across a Bill which has been introduced into the United States Congress, and which aims at putting out of business all firms that manufacture matches with white phosphorus. Of course, the real design of the United States Bill is to corner the market for the Match Trust. The Canadian Minister of Labour, without knowing all the facts of the case, clutched at the statement that white phosphorus was poisonous, and, thinking to gain eclat by similar legislation designed to save the workers from the cruel manufacturers, immediately introduced the measure mentioned into parliament.
Objects of Attack.
But in addition to charges from Washington that he is in league with the Match Trust, Mr. King and the government find themselves

the object of attack not only by several Canadian manufacturers of matches, but also by work people who will lose their occupations if the Bill becomes law and thus shuts down a number of factories.
And so on-
That is a somewhat serious indictment to be brought against any one person let alone against a government as a whole, and that report has been sent out from end to end of the Dominion as being the explanation of the Bill I have introduced. It is only fair to point out that the paper which published this article in the first instance, on the following day, in its editorial columns, published a complete repudiation of the article. The editorial was headed: ' Poisoned victims/ and it goes on to show that the paper which published the article does not share this view. Giving the name of the paper, it says:
This paper prefers to be on the side of the legislation suggested against a manufacturing curse which undoubtedly was at no recent date rife throughout civilization.
We beg, therefore, to repudiate sympathy with the opinions which appeared in this paper yesterday, and on the contrary to range ourselves among the supporters of the government Bill until good reasons are proved against it.
Mr. OWEN.: Is any white phosphorus used in the manufacture of matches in Canada and if so where?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: White phosphorus is used in all the factories. The largest is the E. B. Eddy Company at Hull, there are also the J. and G. Flewelling at Hampton, New Brunswick, the Eureka Match Factory at Halifax, Nova Scotia, there is also one in the province of Quebec, and I think there is a factory beginning business in Deseronto, Ontario. In all these factories I understand white phosphorous is used in the manufacture of matches.
I may say that simultaneously with the introduction of this Bill in this House or a little before a Bill was introduced in the United States House of Representatives which is now before that body. I have copies of the different Bills which have been introduced, one on June 3, 1910, a Bill to provide for a tax upon white phosphorus matches and for other purposes; another on December 15, of the same name and one on December 19, 1910. All of these Bills have been introduced with a view to having the United States also become a party to the convention to which these other countries have become parties, and if that legislation passes, and this legislation passes in this House, and there is reason to believe that in each case it will pass, then the countries on this continent and the leading countries in Europe will have united together to absolutely put down the possibility of the spread of this disease in
connection with the match making industry.	-
On December 6, 1910, Mr. Taft, President of the United States, sent the following message to Congress:
I invite attention to the very serious injury caused to all those who are engaged in the manufacture of phosphorus matches. The disease incident to this are frightful, and as matches can be made from other materials entirely innocuous, I believe that the injurious manufacture could be discouraged and ought to be discouraged by the imposition of a heavy federal tax. I recommend the adoption of this method of stamping out a very serious abuse.
The president's message, I should say, was not sent until after the whole matter had been very carefully investigated by officers of the Department of Labour and Commerce in the United States. I have here a copy of hearings before the committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives on Bills relating to the health and activity of the general public, a report which deals with this one question alone, printed during the latter part of last year. _It contains a complete account of the match making industry in the United States and cites cases of phosphorus necrosis which are known to be existent in the factories there. On the first page is a letter from the Secretary of Commerce and Labour. 'Hon. Charles Nagel, stating different reasons why an Act of this kind should be passed in the United States. It contains, on page 390, a letter which was given by the then president of the Diamond Match Company, the concern which owns the patent of the substance to which I have referred-sesquisulphide-in which the president of that company states that in the event of an Act of this kind being passed in the United States his firm will be agreeable to allow all manufacturing concerns to have the use of its patented substance on equal terms with itself. The same kind of a charge that has been made here in Canada in the article to which I have referred has been made also in the United States namely that this legislation is being promoted by the Match Trust and the. reason that is put forward is that the Match Trust, the Diamond Match Company in the United States happens to own the patent for this substance, sesquisulphide, and will not allow other concerns to use it so that its competitors will be at a disadvantage if legislation of this kind should be enacted. That makes this letter of considerable interest. It reads:
Akron, Ohio, March 15, 1909. Charles E. McKenna,
Special Agent, Bureau of Labour.
Washington, D.C.
Dear Sir,-The Diamond Match Company, owners of patents for the use of sesquisulphide

phosphorus for the manufacture of matches in America, believing this article to he a remedy for the prevailing trouble in manufacturing matches, namely, phosphorus necrosis, is willing to permit the use of sesquisulphide in the manufacture of matches in America if the government provided for the prohibition of the use of white phosphorus by other manufacturers of matches not owning an interest in the patent, they all to be put on equal terms with the Diamond Match Company as to the use of the patents. The government of England has this last winter passed a Bill prohibiting the use of white phosphorus and providing for the use of sesquisulpliide on equal terms, as per copy of Bill inclosed.
0. C. BARBEE.
On seeing this communication in the report it occurred to me that it might be well to communicate with the Diamond Match Company in the United States and find out whether this company would be willing to grant the use of the patented substance to manufacturing firms in Canada on as liberal terms as they propose to offer in the United States. I may say that this patent in Canada is at present owned by the same company, the Diamond Match Company, they having obtained possession of the patent last year. It was patented in Canada some years ago by two Frenchmen. I sent the following communication to the president of the Diamond Match Company on the last day of the old year.
Ottawa, Ont., December 31, 1910.
Sirs,-In a report of the hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives on Bills relating to Health Activities of the general government, part VII, printed at Washington this year, I find quoted at page 390 the following communication:-
Here is set out the letter I have first read.
I understand from inquiry at the Patent Office of the Dominion that a patent for the use of sesquisulphide for the manufacture of matches in Canada was taken out in 1899 by Henri Sevens and E. D. Cahen, of Paris, France, and in 1910 assigned to the Diamond Match Company. I inclose for your information copy of a Bill which I have introduced in the House of Commons of Canada, and I am writing to ask if, in the event of this Bill becoming law, the Diamond Match Company is prepared to permit the use of sesquisulphide in the manufacture of matches in Canada on the same terms on which, according to the above quoted communication, it is prepared to allow its use under like circumstances in the United States, i.e., all manufacturers to he put on equal terms with the Diamond Match Company as to the use of the patents.
As this question is likely to be raised in the course of the debate on the second reading of the Bill which .may take place very shortly after the reassembling of parliament on the 11th proximo, I would he obliged if your company would give me a statement Mr. KING.
which I might make public in this connection.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) W. B. MACKENZIE KING.
Minister of Labour. The Diamond Match Company,
Akron, Ohio.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: Has the Diamond Match Company manufactured in Canada under its patent?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not aware that they have manufactured in Canada.


George Taylor: Then their patent is worthless.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That would be all the better for the manufacturers in this country.


Mr. WRIGHT.: What are these particular terms?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The correspondence which I am about to read will probably answer that question.
January 11, 1911. The Diamond Match Company,
111 Broadway, New York.
Sir,-We are in receipt of your letter of December 31, 1910.
In reply we beg to advise you that in the event of the passage of your Bill No. 10, entitled ' An Act to prohibit the Manufacture and Importation of Matches made with White Phosphorus/ we would be quite willing to permit the use of sesquisulphide of phosphorus in Canada on equitable terms.
The use of sesquisulphide of phosphorus as an ingredient in the composition of a match head as covered by letters patent of the Dominion of Canada granted December 5, 1899, to Henri Sevene and E. D. Cahen, of Paris, France, and assigned to this company.
The 4th section of the English White Phosphorus Act provides that any person who is manufacturing or proposing to manufacture matches may present a petition to the board of trade praying for the grant of a compulsory license, &c. So far as we, as owners of the Canadian patent are concerned, we would be quite satisfied with a similar provision in the Canadian law.
Yours truly,
The Diamond Match Co.,


EDW. R. STETTINIUS,
[Stage Direction]
President.
W. L. Mackenzie King, Esq.,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa, Canada.
Since the receipt of that letter, a letter has reached me from Mr. Andrews, the secretary of the American Association for Labour Legislation which shows that the Diamond Match Company has gone a step further. As I have pointed out, the agitation in the United States, as in the manner attempted here, has been directed to make it appear that the match trust is really seeking to promote legislation of this kind and to us,e these patents to embarrass other concerns. This letter speaks for itself:

American Association for Labour Legislation.
Metropolitan Tower, New York City,
Jan. 10, 1911.
Hon.  W. L.@: Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa, Canada.
My dear Mr. King,-You will be interested to know that the bugaboo of monopoly raised by some disingenuous persons with reference to our national campaign to secure the prohibition of the use of poisonous phosphorus in the manufacture of matches in the United States has been squelched for all time in this connection. The Diamond Match Co. has assigned its patent for the sesquisulphide substitute to three trustees: Prof. E. R. A. Selig-man, of Columbia University, Commissioner Charles P. Neill, of the United States Bureau of Labour, and Attorney Jackson Ralston, attorney for the American Federation of Labour, Washington, D.C., with full power to deal with future applicants for the patented formula on any basis they may think proper.
These three gentlemen have been given power to fix the terms according to what they think proper, they being trustees. I think that answers the question my hon. friend asked.
In the United States we believe we have now overcome every objection that can be honestly raised and we hope every suspicion, no matter how unjustified. We are holding a conference in Chicago to-morrow on this subject, and within the next week we hope to see the Escli Phosphorus Bill reported out of the committee and well on its way toward early enactment into law at this present short session of Congress.
With best wishes for the progress of similar legislation in Canada, I am,
Yours very sincerely,
JOHN B. ANDREWS, Secretary.
What I would like to make plain to the House is that in all the countries of Europe where this legislation has been enacted, this substitute has taken the place of white phosphorus. As I understand it, it is a chemical mixture which contains phosphorus and sulphur, the two being mixed in retorts away from where the people are working, so" that there is no danger, after the combination has been effected, from the effects of the substance. And that is another important feature-that there is no danger to children of poisoning by sucking the heads of matches. That danger is done away with as well as the danger of phosphorus poisoning while the match manufacture is going on.
As I have stated, the countries of Europe have adopted this substitute. They have been face to face with the same condition that the match manufacturers here will have to meet. They have acquiesced in the legislation that has been passed; in fact, the British match manufacturers, when the matter was up for consideration
there, petitioned the Home Office to adopt this very legislation. It may - seem extraordinary that they should have done so, but the explanation is, I understand that they found that the regulations under which the British government was placing them with a view to preventing this disease caused them more expense than the use of the substitute would cause, and they felt that if they were all put on an equal footing it would be in their own interests to acquiesce in the enactment of a law of this kind. On Tuesday, the 24th of March, 1908, Mr. Gilbert Bartholomew, chairman and managing director of Bryant & May, Limited, the largest manufacturers of matches in England, headed a deputation to the Home Secretary. I will not quote the whole of his remarks, but will read two paragraphs. Mr. Bartholomew said:
I have the honour to represent here the match manufacturers of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland who use poisonous phosphorus. There are at present only nine of such manufacturers of matches, and they are Bryant & May, Limited, London and Liverpool; R. Bell & Co., Limited, London; J. Palmer & Son, London; S. J. Moreland & Sons, Gloucester; Maguire, Miller & Co., Liverpool; Paterson & Co., Limited, Dublin; W. J. Morgan & Co., Limited, Manchester; Hargreaves & Clegg, Limited, Manchester; The Hulme Patent Advertising Match Co., Limited, Manchester. The nine manufacturers are unanimous in appealing to you, sir, to take such steps as may be necessary to prohibit, at the earliest possible date, the use of poisonous phosphorus in the manufacture of matches.
And after giving ,a number of reasons in support of this request, the chairman said:
I want to emphasize another feature which is very important, and that is, that so long as phosphorus matches remain in use, so long there will be occasional deaths among children poisoned by sucking the heads of such matches. These considerations alone should be sufficient to win a ready response to our proposal. Another grave feature which I need not particularize: it is doubtless familiar to the Home Office, has brought about the present condition of things in Sweden, and yet, while phosphorus matches are not allowed to be sold or consumed in that country, their manufacture in the country is still allowed for export to this and other countries where such matches are not yet prohibited.
In conclusion, our case may be briefly stated to be;-
1.	The manufacturers are unanimous in favour of prohibition.
2.	The employees will heartily welcome prohibition.
3.	Quite a number of other countries have already adopted it, and we believe the rest will gladly do so when led in that direction by Great Britain.
4.	Efficient substitutes for poisonous phosphorus are available. The efficiency cannot be better testified to than by mentioning the fact that for the last eight years all Bryant &



May's matches have been manufactured without poisonous phosphorus. It is true that the two efficient alternatives are patented; but the owners of the better known of the two have offered it to their brother manufacturers in the United Kingdom, who have readily accepted the terms offered, which, I may say, are practically but a nominal recognition of the patent rights. The other alternative is the joint property of the manufacturers, except one, and that one has accepted proposals enabling him to use whichever of the alternatives he may prefer.
5. There is consequently no reason whatever why the use of poisonous phosphorus should be continued, and I believe it is well known to the Home Office that in other countries there has been very much more injury to the health of the workers than in this, and it is to be expected, therefore, that very soon there will be unanimity in this matter throughout the match-making countries. But whether there is or not, or whether it comes sooner or later, we claim the time has come and should not be delayed, when Great Britain should be ready to give effect to a proposal which can have none but beneficial effects upon all concerned.
Now, the attitude of the British government in both Houses of parliament, when the subject came up for discussion there, may be stated in a few words. In the House of Commons the Hon. Herbert Gladstone, Secretary of State for the Home Department said in reference to this legislation :
So far as the general necessity for the Bill was concerned, it was desirable, though he admitted there had been few cases lately of necrosis poisoning, if they could do it, absolutely to eliminate the chance of this very dreadful and painful disease occurring. It was so dreadful that, even if only one case had occurred in the last few years, this Bill, which would involve no trouble or expense, would be justified.
These were the words of the present Governor of South Africa. Then in the House of Lords, the Lord Steward, Earl Beauchamp said:
Representations have been made to the Home Office, on behalf of all the manufacturers of matches in the United Kingdom, that if the importation of matches made abroad with white phosphorus is prohibited by law they would be willing that the use of that material in the manufacture of matches in this country should be forbidden.
. . .1 do not think, therefore, that there will be any increase in the cost of manufacture of these ' strike anywhere ' matches. In these circumstances and especially in view of the fact that this Bill will go far to prevent the danger of cases of phossy jaw occurring among match makers in the future, I hope your Lordship will agree to the motion for the second reading.
I have dwelt a little on the English legislation, because I feel that rightly the precedent of the British parliament will carry great weight in this country. We Mr. KING.
have first of all, the match manufacturers themselves in Britain uniting in a petition to have this legislation passed in the English house, recognizing that the best regulation possible to have, was ineffective, and we have both the House of Commons and the House of Lords agreeing to the legislation. Now I do not believe that in this country we shall encounter any more opposition from the match manufacturers than was encountered in Great Britain. I have had a talk with Mr. Rowley, general manager of the E. B. Eddy Company, which I think produces something like ninety per cent of the matches used in this country. Mr. Rowley has stated to me that while he does not see that there is any necessjty for this legislation from his point of view, and while he thinks the regulations at present existing are quite effective, I am at liberty to state that his company does not propose to offer any opposition to this legislation. Then I have had an opportunity of talking with Mr. Flewelling, representing the match company in Hampton, and with Mr. Corbett, of Halifax, and also with Mr. McCarthy, who has to do with the business just starting in Deser-onto, Ontario; and these gentlemen,, while [DOT]perhaps they would prefer to see no legislation, have told me that if sufficient time is given them in which to make the necessary changes, they do not intend to offer any active opposition to the measure. So parliament, in considering this legislation, may keep in mind, not merely the precedent of Great Britain, the example of all the countries in Europe, but I think may rely, if not upon co-operation, at least upon the tacit consent of the match manufacturers of this country.
I would point out to the House that if there were no reasons other than those I have already mentioned, they are quite sufficient to justify legislation of this kind. Great Britain and the European countries have all found this legislation necessary. Is there any reasonable ground for believing that in Canada the reasons are less strong than they have proven to be in those older countries? If we do not enact legislation of this kind while other countries do, we give a premium to the manufacturer who may desire to produce matches from white phosphorus, and hold out, as it were, an inducement to him to come here. On the other hand, all the countries which have enacted this legislation have also prohibited the importation of matches made with white phosphorus, Canada to-day cannot export matches to Britain made with white phosphorus, nor to Germany, nor to any other European country I have mentioned. We have further the prospect, the probability, of a similar enactment in the United States; so we would also be shut

out, if their Bill passes, from shipping matches into the United States. At any rate,, one of the strong reasons why we should take part in this work is, that it is part of a great international movement for the purpose of suppressing a great industrial evil, and for Canada to stand apart in such a movement is equivalent to saying to these other countries that we are not prepared to do our share in bringing about a world reform of this magnitude.	-
But I can understand that members of the House might feel that while these reasons are good, they are not strong enough to warrant this legislation.! A moment ago I referred to a report that officers of the Department of Labour were called upon to make, and this report relates to the question which I have been asked several times namely, as to whether in Canada we have any cases of phosphorus necrosis. I had hoped that it would not be necessary to make mention of any of these cases. It is not a pleasant task to cite instances which do not reflect credit upon industries or upon individuals, and I would much prefer being spared to make the statement I have now to make. On the other hand, if I do not cite instances, there are many who will say that the necessity does not exist, and that there is no sufficient reason for this legislation, notwithstanding all that has been said. However, in order to do as little injury to any one as possible, I have carefully eliminated from the report which was presented to me by the officers of the Department of Labour who investigated this matter, all the names of which the report makes mention. I can give the names to any member of the House and shall be glad to do so, if he wishes to have them, but for purposes of record and so far as the public generally is concerned, I think that the mere statement 'of the cases themselves will be sufficient.
The following statements are from the joint report of the two officers of the department who made the investigation. The first three cases cited relate to deaths from phosphorus poisoning which occurred during the past year.
Miss 

, aged between 22 and 23 years,
resided with her parents at 

 street.' Her
death took place about a year ago. The following brief statement concerning her illness and death was made by her mother:-
She commenced work in the match factory at the age of 14. Her term of employment there lasted about 7 years, when she had to cease work. Her trouble commenced with toothache and extended to the jawbones, finally affecting the whole face. During the last stages of the disease she was completely blind. Her illness covered a period of 19
months. She was attended by Dr. 

 and
Dr. 

. She was admitted to 

Hospital on two occasions, where operations were
performed, and was released from that institution shortly before her death. During the last few years she worked in the match factory she earned $1.25 per day.
Dr. , the first of the physicians referred to by the mother, states that phosphorus poisoning was the cause of this young womanJs death. The other physician did not wish to be interviewed.
That is one case. 1 can supply the name of the physician who attended her, and who states that her death was due to phosphorus poisoning, and I can give the name of the hospital where hon. gentlemen themselves can see the records.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Was that given as the cause of death, or was it in the certificate of death ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was given by the physician himself.
Miss -	38 years of age, resided at

She died on April 17, 1910, after an illness of about a year, at the age of 25. She had worked in the match factory about five years before her troubles began. She was admitted
to the

Hospital during the summer of
1909, and was under the care of Dr.

, of

. She had all her teeth extracted and
portions of the jawbone removed. Was confined to bed for five months and endured terrible suffering from ulceration of the jaw and decay of the bone. In describing the cause of her death, the expression used by one of her parents was, ' She died of consumption, caused by swallowing pus from ulcerated jaw.'
The report next makes mention of several persons who are reported to have succumbed to the disease, but in regard to whose cases it was not possible to obtain reliable information.
The following are mentioned as examples of cases of phosphorus poisoning existing at the present time, but which have not proved fatal. Any of the particulars mentioned may be verified by persons who desire to see and converse with the parties:

Mrs. 

, residing at

 worked in match
factory for some years, and left on the advice of Dr.

fourteen years ago. Before
leaving, she had fourteen teeth extracted, and was under medical and surgical treatment -for a year. The doctor who attended this case states this woman contracted phosphorus poisoning in the match factory some years ago, but has been cured.
Miss 

, aged 28 years, residing with her
parents at

.
The following brief statement was given by her mother.
She commenced to work in the match factory at the age of fourteen. Two years ago she had two teeth extracted by Dr. 

*, when a piece of the jawbone was removed.
Dr.

was consulted and he advised 'that
she discontinue working in the fumes, as she was too weak to counteract its influence.' Her face is still inflamed and swollen, but her mother does not anticipate any serious results.
The doctor who removed a portion of this young woman's jawbone states that the cause of her trouble was phosphorus poisoning.
Miss

, aged 32 years, residing at 

,
stated herself that she had worked in the match factory for eighteen years; that for four years she was sick and una,ble to work. During this time she was operated upon at 

and 

 hospitals, 

, and at 

 hospital, 

. She had worked only a few years
in the match factory when her teeth began to loosen and ache. At one period of her illness her whole lower jawbone was removed. All her teeth have been extracted. It is twelve years since the last operation was performed, but the left side of her face is still inflamed and swollen. She has suffered more or less during all these years.'
Mr. 
, residing at - , states that he worked for twenty years in the match factory at 

; that he has had all his teeth
extracted. About five or six years ago ulceration of the jaw commenced, and nis teeth one after another, although perfectly sound, loosened and had to be removed. He was
treated at 

 hospital, 

, where he had
five operations performed on the jawbones, and finally the entire lower jaw was removed. He was sick and unable to work for seven months. The surgeon who performed the operations told him that the cause of his trouble was due to phosphorus poisoning contracted in the match factory. He says he has great difficulty in masticating his food, being unable to eat anything of a solid substance. This man gave the names of three other men, employees of the same factory, whom he stated had been attacked with necrosis of the jaw. About four years ago a man had to have both upper and lower jawbones removed. Another man lost the left half of the lower jaw, including the ear. Another
man named 

, died, he says, from the
effects of phosphorus poisoning.
Miss 

*, aged 41, residing at 

, stated
that she was employed in the match factory for a great many years. About thirteen years ago her teeth began to loosen, and she had a number of them extracted. About the same time she had portions of the lower jawbone taken out. After that the ulceration Mr. KING.
continued, and affected her whole face. Dr.

 performed a number of operations, finally
removing the whole lower jawbone. These operations were performed at her home. She was confined to bed for four years, and for two years the suffering was so intense that opiates had to be administered. She recovered sufficiently to return to work, although she suffered afterwards from inflammation of the jaw. About three months ago she had all the remaining teeth in the upper jaw, thirteen in number, removed, and her face is still swollen. Her health has suffered on account of her being unable to masticate her food. This woman stated that during her illness portions of her jawbone became so ulcerated that they were removed by herself without the aid of the surgeon.'
Miss 

, aged 46 years, residing at 

,
states that she worked in the match factory for 17 years, though it is now six years since she worked there. She had worked in _the factory for 10 years before she felt the effects of the poison. For two years before she finally ceased work there she had suffered a great deal from toothache and ulceration of the jaw, and was ignorant of the true nature of the disease she was suffering from. Dr.

 was her physician. She was confined to
bed for two years. She had all her teeth extracted, and both upper and lower jawbones removed, necessitating many operations. She had never been admitted to a hospital, the operations being performed at her home. Her face is very much disfigured. As a result of the disease she has a hole under her chin which penetrates the mouth. Fluid taken into the mouth escapes through this hole unless prevented by holding the ball of the thumb under the chin, covering the Jiole. She says her health generally is poor; that at the time of her illness the pain was so great that she lost her reason for a while. She could remember cases of phosphorus poisoning in the match factory during her term of employment. She also stated that her mother had died from effects of blood poisoning while she was nursing her through her illness.
Dr. 

, who attended this woman, was
interviewed in reference to this case. He said it was a bad case of phosphorus poisoning, and it was almost miraculous that the woman survived-all the suffering she had endured.
The report concludes by making mention of one or two other recent cases of phosphorus poisoning, of which an account was given by the physicians who attended the same.
When I read that report I hardly believed the statements that were made in it, and I decided that before I would mention the subject in this House I would verify the .statements myself. The two last cases, I think, were about as bad as any reported in the list, so I went to the homes of these people myself and had a conversation with them. I will vouch from personal observation for the truth of every statement that is contained in the account 'of the two last cases I have read. One of the women I talked with had both of her jaws removed entirely and had the abscesses in her mouth to which I made reference. The bones taken from that woman's face are at the present

moment in my office. That women is supported by a sister who has to earn the food required for each of them, and she has been rendered an invalid for the rest of her life. I went to the other home and I talked with this woman, who had lain in bed for four years. At the present time she	is the	only support	of her mother,and	she	is able to	earn $4	a week. She
is without a lower jaw at all and she told me that during her illness she pulled her jaw out with her own hands, such was the condition of the bones at that time.
It is not a pleasant task to bring facts of this kind before the House, but I must say that when I came back from attending a conference at which this subject was being discussed and these facts were put before me,	I	felt	I	would	be negligentin	the	duty	I owed	this country
if I hesitated to bring into parliament for the sake of concealing facts of this kind similar legislation to that which has been enacted in Great Britain. We talk a great deal in these days about the conservation of natural resources, but I think that more important than the conservation of natural resources is the conservation of human resources, the conservation of human health and of human life. Resources are well enough; our lumber, forests, ore and minerals were given to us for a purpose, but they were given for the preservation and not the destruction of life. So in the Department of Labour we have taken as one of the objects before us, as part of the work which I trust it will be possible to carry on through the years to come, this important question of the preservation of health, the conservation of human life, the protection of the working people the great mass of the people of this country from occupational or other diseases which help to undermine the strength of the nation. If this country is to be what we wish it to be, a country of happy, contented and prosperous people, it will only be by safeguarding the lives and welfare of the many, and by protecting from injustice and ill the homes of the humble in the land.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: Would the minister be good enough to stats to the House on what grounds he claims this House has any jurisdiction to pass such a measure?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may mention to my hon. friend that when I wished to proceed the other day with the second reading of this Bill I was prevented from so doing by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) on account of the fact that I had not preceded this Bill with a resolution, as apparently I should have seeing that it related to trade and commerce, and measures respecting trade and commerce came within the jurisdiction of this House. I think, perhaps, my hon. friend will feel
that the opinion expressed by the leader of the opposition is one which he will care to accept.


William Barton Northrup: I am afraid the minister who has just taken his seat is about as far astray in the facts he has stated to the House, in the inference he has drawn from these facts and in his general information as to the law giving jurisdiction to this House as he is in the conclusion that he has drawn from the objection stated by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition the other day. In this Bill there is one clause which forbids the importation of any of these matches into Canada. Beyond any question, apart from the rest of the Bill, eliminate every other word from the Bill, and there you have a clause forbidding the importation of matches into Canada which would bring the Bill under the rule which requires Bills relating to trade and commerce to be brought befjre the House first by way of resolution. But I venture to think, that when the minister considers the various heads under which jurisdiction is given to this parliament in clause 91 of the British North America Act, and the various heads in clause 92 under which jurisdiction is given to the provincial legislatures, he will find beyond per-adventure that there is no clause there that in any way would give this House the jurisdiction he claims. Without going into that point, let me ask him to consider that the highest courts of the land have again and again held that the words; ' regulation of trade and commerce * must not be read in a literal sense. As the Lord Chancellor said: If we were to take these words literally giving the Dominion power to legislate on all subjects which related to trade and commerce, surely the Dominion would have the right to legislate with regard to bills and notes, and yet a head is given particularly for bills and notes; surely the Dominion would have the power right to legislate touching insolvency and yet a specific head is given under clause 91 for insolvency. Would not common sense lead the minister to the same conclusion that the Lord Chancellor of England has come to again and again, that when we take the words ' regulating trade and commerce they mean regulating our trade as between provinces, as between nations, regulating that trade which is existing. And, for the Minister of Labour to confuse the operations of an isolated factory, perhaps in a country town, with the trade and commerce referred to in the British North America Act, is hardly treating the subject with that respect which might be expected from him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say that I did not rely exclusively on the leader of the opposition, but before this matter was presented to

the House I asked Mr. Aeland, the deputy Minister of Labour, to see the Justice Department and consult the Deputy Minister of Justice, to whom the Bill was referred, and get his opinion upon it. I have before me the statement which was given me at the time by Mr. Aeland:
Mr. Newcombe took the ground that the i)ommion had the fullest right to legislate on the matter, such legislation being intended tor the obvious good of the entire community. The question of the protection of public health was not, he pointed out, specifically mentioned m the British North America Act, and it was no more than a matter of convenience that tor focal reasons it was left in the hands of the provinces. In his view the Dominion had a perfect right to enact legislation 'prohibiting the importation, manufacture and sale of matches made from white phosphorus.
I think one may also draw attention to
the fact that this measure if passed would constitute part of the criminal law, and that it would come under the head of the class of measures which have to do with the peace, order and good government of Canada.


William Barton Northrup: I do not think the House would be inclined to waste much time discussing the value of the opinion of a gentleman who writes that it is clear this House has jurisdiction over this matter in as much as it is for the obvious good of the community. Is it possible that in this House we have reached a stage when a minister of the Crown will calmly and coolly give as a reason for bringing legislation before it-which it is most doubtful to say the least whether or not this House has the power to pass-that such legislation is for the obvious good of the community. Inferentially the local legislature would have no power to pass any measures which are for the obvious good of the community, and inferentially also section 92 of the British North America Act is at once annulled by such a plea as this. I do not think the minister on calm reflection will be inclined to ask the House to place on the statute-book such an important law simply on the ground that It is for the obvious good of the community. Let me take the statement of facts .given by the minister at some considerable length. I do not for a moment intend to contradict , . truthfulness of any statement made by him, but I think I can add one or two equally true statements so that we may have, if not the whole truth, a litle nearer to the whole truth, than the statement the House is possessed of at the present tune. It is perfectly true there was a conference in Berne, it is perfectly true that Great Britain declined at first to accede to the wishes of the other powers, and to sign an agreement such as she has practically come to in this statute of 1908.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The stand taken by Great Britain was that it was not necessary for Great Britain to enter into such an agreement because there had been a very careful investigation into the working of the match factories in that country and a report had been handed in, and I venture to read a few words from that report:
In 1900 regulations were made and enforced. These regulations have had the effect of almost wholly suppressing the disease in England. In the five years that have elapsed since the alterations which they required having been made, there have been only five cases of necrosis and three of these were mild, the persons affected recovering and finding employment. Of the other two cases, both of which were fatal, one was that of a woman who was employed in a factory where no white phosphorus had been used for four years,

It is hardly fair to charge her case up to white phosphorus :
-and the other was that of a woman who had been guilty of direct infraction of one of the most important of the regulations.
The report concludes :
There have been no cases in 1906.
And so, the state of affairs in England was not such as to require Great Britain to agree to this convention, and so she declined to sign at that time. But, she went more than half way and she offered to sign if all the other nations concerned would sign. Sweden declined, Spain declined, Portugal declined, Japan declined, Norway declined even to send representatives to the convention, and Austro-Hun-gary and Belgium took the same stand as Great Britain. We find, therefore, that but a small portion of the continent of Europe had agreed to this convention, and when eventually, Great Britain offered to subscribe if the others would subscribe, thj others still held out and are holding out to this day. The countries subscribing were : France, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Switzerland, Wurtemburg, and Italy, and of these seven the first five already had this law on their statute-books, and so their signature bound them in no way to dp more than they were doing. That left Luxemburg which had not a match factory within its boundary, and Italy. So, Great Britain's offer to the nations' of Europe was not accepted by the nations of Europe and Great Britain did not sign. A year or two later on, and as the Minister of Labour says, a deputation came to the government of England, a deputation of match manufacturers asking them to pass this legislation, and I will not go beyond the words of the minister himself who said there were nine manufacturers representing all the match manufacturers of England ; that one of them Bryant & May had a formula which they had arranged with

their colleagues to use. And so. these gentlemen having the formula among the nine, being threatened by the importations from Sweden as referred to by the minister, calmly and coolly sacrificed themselves on the altar of patriotism by having an - Act passed which gave them a monopoly for all time to coma, shut out all competition on the part of others, and left these nine patriots in exclusive control of the English market. The minister has been so anxious that we should follow the English example that I think he had better study the circumstances under which England did consent, and see how the people of England were buncoed 'by the government when they passed such a Bill, and sea that Canada delays, as England did, until all the match manufacturers come to the government and agree in asking this.; then, perhaps, the government ought to consider their application. The minister pointed out that although on the face of this legislation it so invitas criticism that the press throughout the land have 'been charging him with having been the recipient of a gold brick at the hands of the Diamond Match Company, the minister triumphantly pointed out this cannot be the case, because in the United States where the Diamond Match Trust stands side by side with the Standard Oil Company-a company that is morally certain to receive at least justice when it seeks legislation- the Diamond Match Company having applied for legislation in the United States was as the minister knows unable to obtain it from the federal power because as they admitted they had no jurisdiction, but indirectly they endeavoured to give the benefits the Diamond Match Company wished by imposing taxes. And, even then despite all the influence of the Diamond Match Company it was apparently unable to pass its Bill until it assigned to trustees the secret formula which places it in the position of making every other match manufacturer on the continent pay toll to it until a better formula is discovered. The minister places great stress on the fact that the formula has been assigned to three gentlemen whose names are above the possibility of reproach, giving them the power to do what is proper between the parties. Would the minister, or would I, would any man if the owner of a valuable formula of that kind assign it with authority to others to do what was proper and would he think it proper to hand that over without any consideration to any company who wished to use it. Surely the first element of propsr conduct would be to do what is right by those who owned the formula. The first thing these trustees do is to exact a royalty ; and in the case of matches which sell by the million, it is a matter of no importance what the royalty is on each
box, but the business is so immense that if the Diamond Match Company can secure that royalty, they will have secured something well worth having, and if they can obtain a monopoly in Canada that is surely something worthy of consideration, and one of those things which will add to the increased cost of living. Surely the Minister of Labour will not deny that by compelling every manufacturer in Canada to use a formula owned by an American trust company and pay that trust a royalty and by compelling -him also to show the extent of the market lie can supply, he will be putting the manufacturer here completely at the mercy of this powerful trust of the United States ; and in so doing the hon. minister will surely not say that he is thereby reducing the cost of living.
I have spoken of the report by the government commission in Great Britain which was appointed to inquire into the effects and ravages of necrosis in that country, and that report shows that practically by British legislation necrosis has become a thing of the past in the mother land. I think I have shown why the manufacturers of England might well ask for legislation which would give the nine manufacturers in that country a monopoly for all time to come.
I find by referring to the dictionary of chemistry by Thorpe-an authority which will not be questioned-that this whole matter was threshed out in England from 1840 to 1865, and that although necrosis was a very common and hideous disease there prior to that time, by recent regulations, the English authorities have practically stamped it out: Away back as far as 1879 in Germany, out of 5,724 workmen coming in contact with phosphorus, only nine cases of necrosis were observed and only three of deaths from this illness. But still, insignificant even as that number was, Germany made regulations in 1884 which practically stamped out the disease in that country.
The hon. minister has said that when his attention was called to this appalling state of affairs, when he learned of the ravages of necrosis, he took steps to ascertain by communication with the provincial authorities whether any legislation had been passed by any province bearing on this subject. Does not this strike you, Sir, as a singular commentary on the way our ministers carry on the public business? Instead of employing clerks to write letters to provincial secretaries, would it not have , been much simpler to have turned up the revised statutes of each province and find out if they contained any7 legislation on this subject? All the minister would have to do would bp to look at the statutes and thus save himself the trouble of dictating bombastic . letters to the various provincial secretaries.

In the statutes of Ontario, there is a Factory Act, and he would probably find such an Act in the statutes of every province in the Dominion. In the Ontario Factory Act, chapter 256, he will find sanitary conditions imposed on all factories. He will find that ventilation, which in England was considered the principal remedy, is insisted on in the Ontario Act besides other regulations for the prevention of disease which have been found very effective. In the schedule at the end of that Act, page 3119 of the statutes, are included all those factories to which it applies, and I find match factories specifically named.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can the hon. gentleman give a reference to legislation by any of the provinces on this subject of phosphorus necrosis?


William Barton Northrup: Does my hon. friend suppose for a moment that if the province of Ontario were to pass an Act to suppress necrosis, they could suppress it by giving the courts jurisdiction to grant an injunction against the presence of necrosis or to order its deportation? Does it not strike him that a practical government would pass an Act requiring the factories to do what would put an end to necrosis and would not require to mention the word at all. It is perfectly true that there is not a word in the statutes against necrosis, and I am not aware that there is a word in it against any disease known to the medical faculty, but the Act provides regulations which will prevent disease, and if this government, which takes such an interest in this matter, would draw the attention of the various provincial authorities to the information it has at hand, and point out any proper precautions that could be taken to prevent this disease, no doubt the provincial authorities would be ready to adopt any regulation which would have this effect. It would be very unfair to them to suppose for a moment that they would refuse to do so. The fact that this Ontario Act has been before the courts frequently and has always been declared intra vires, the fact that it provides sanitary regulations to protect the public health against all disease-these surely show that every province has the right to legislate with regard to sanitary conditions in its factories, and the fact that this Act to which I have referred is on the Ontario statutes is another argument against this House having the right to pass what is practically a factory Act.
The question of. public health has been dealt with by our provinces again and again, and the right of the provinces to deal with them has been held in the case of Rinfret vs. Pope in the province of Quebec. That question has been held to be a matter for provincial jurisdiction, and consequently Mr. NORTHRTJP.
this House has no jurisdiction to deal with it.
A word or two as to the question of jurisdiction under the head of trade and commerce^ If the hon. minister will look at the British North America Act, he will find that, on the one hand, the Dominion parliament has the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the class of subjects assigned to the provincial legislatures. So the minister is quite mistaken and the Deputy Minister of Justice is quite mistaken if he thinks there is any clause in the British North America Act that gives this House power to legislate, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada. There is a long list of subjects assigned to this parliament and a long list assigned to the legislatures. Besides this, we have power to pass laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada in relation to all matters that do not come within the class of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of each province. Each province is allowed to legislate in regard to local works and undertakings, to property and civil rights and generally in relation to all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province. Did the minister ever stop to consider what the meaning of these words, 1 the regulation of trade and commerce ' would be ? They have received a judicial interpretation and I venture to say that any one's common sense would teach him just what the Lord Chancellor of England concluded, that is that if this parliament is given power to regulate the trade and commerce of Canada, the power to regulate implied a continued opportunity to regulate; there is all the difference in the world betwen regulation and prohibition. In case there is any doubt, we have the opinion of the Privy Council in the case of the city of Toronto and Virgo in VII. Appeal Cases in these terms
Their lordships think there is marked distinction to be drawn between the prohibition or prevention of a trade and the regulation or governance of it, and indeed a power to regulate and govern seems to imply the continued existence of that which is to be regulated or governed.
In the case of the Attorney General of Ontario vs. the Attorney General of the Dominion, the courts held that:
A power to regulate, naturally, if not necessarily, assumes, unless it is enlarged by,.the context, the conservation of the thing which is to be made the subject of regulation.
So the Minister of Labour, when he speaks of regulating trade, is in reality proposing to prohibit trade. This sta-

tute prohibits the manufacture of a certain kind of matches in Canada. I contend that when we speak of trade, the manufacturer is not a trader; the decisions are clear on that point, in the same way that the man who issues an insurance policy, an indemnity against fire, is not a trader, and the courts have so held. The manufacturer may become a trader when he comes to sell what is manufactured, but this Act does not deal with the selling, but with the manufacture, and so even on that narrow ground, you really do not touch trade and commerce and cannot properly regulate the manufacture.
In Todd there is a very full discussion based on some cases in the House of Lords, particularly the Citizens Insurance case,
7 House of Lords. I quote from Todd's Parliamentary Government in the British Colonies, second edition. The remarks he makes are based on the Citizens Insurance Company, 7 Law Reports Appeal, page 118. I am reading only Todd's comment which is interspersed with extracts from the case:-	.
In the interpretation of the words ' trade and commerce ', in section 91 of the British North America Act, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in rendering judgment in Citizens' Insurance Company's case, construed the words ' regulation of trade and commerce ' by the various aids to their interpretation above suggested, they would include political arrangements in regard to trade requiring the sanction of parliament, regulation of trade in matters of interprovincial concern, and it may be that they would include general regulation of trade affecting the whole Dominion. Their lordships abstain on the present occasion from any attempt to define the limits, the authority of the Dominion parliament in this direction. It is enough for the decision of the present case to say that, in their view its authority to legislate for the regulation of trade and commerce does not comprehend the power to regulate by legislation the contracts of a particular business or trade, such as the business of fire insurance in a single province, and, therefore, that its legislative authority does not in the present case conflict or compete with the power over property and civil rights assigned to the legislature of Ontario by No. 13 of section 92.
Although that was an insurance case, the principle laid down seems the same, that the Dominion has no power to regulate the contracts of a particular business or trade, and so here I say the Dominion has no power to say to a particular trade: You must cease to manufacture. I have here the particular case to which Todd was referring:-
In the head note to this same case the Citizens' Insurance Company of Canada, the reporter gives this summary:
In No. 2 of section 91, the words ' regulation of trade and commerce' include political arrangements in regard to trade requiring the sanction of parliament, regulation of trade in matters of interprovincial concern, and, it may be, general regulation of trade affecting the whole Dominion.
I think these few extracts from the various judgments show clearly that the meaning was to regulate trade and commerce, not to regulate this and that other little matter but to regulate trade in the interests of the whole country.
The minister, and I think the deputy Minister of Justice, in his opinion, spoke of the right to pass the legislation on the ground that it is for the peace, order and good government of Canada. In one of these cases the same argument was used by counsel as by the minister that the Dominion had a perfect right to pass certain legislation because it was for the peace, order and good government of *Canada, and their Lordships taking that up, showed its absurdity on this ground that there was really no possible class of cases submitted to the local legislature that you could not change from their jurisdiction and hand them over to the jurisdiction of the Dominion if that wide meaning was given that the Dominion could legislate for anything touching the peace, order and good government of Canada; and then their Lordships pointed out that there were no such words in the British North America Act, but that we could legislate for the peace, order and good government of Canada only in relation to all matters not coming within the class of subjects assigned by this statute to the local legislature. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) seems to have a slightly different view from the Minister of Labour, because I notice that last year when the question o| tuberculosis was before the House and the Minister of Agriculture was urged to take steps to suppress tuberculosis in our schools, he replied, at 'Hansard, 1909,' page 1438:
There is another point I would suggest, although it is a matter coming under the domain of the provincial authorities, and that is the problem of dealing with tuberculosis in public schools.
So the Minister of Agriculture last year admitted the contention I make to-night that so far as health is concerned, he had no right to deal 'with tuberculosis in public schools, because education was left to the provinces. Precisely the same argument will apply in this case, that you have no right to deal with necrosis in a factory because that is a matter coming under the Factories Act, which is under the provincial authorities. As showing how far the local authorities have power in one of the liquor cases their Lordships of the Privy Council have said, dealing with regard to the manufacture of liquor,

and I merely give this, not as legal proof that the province has power to pass prohibition, but as showing the distance to which their Lordships of the Privy Council went on the very point I urge before this House to-night, that is the power of the provinces to deal with manufacture where it is a provincial and in no sense a Dominion matter. They say:
In the absence of conflicting legislation by the parliament of Canada, their lordships are oi opinion that the provincial legislatures a have jurisdiction to that effect (to pro-lubit the manufacture of intoxicating liquors) if it were shown that the manufacture was earned on under such circumstances and conditions as to make its prohibition a merely local matter in the province.
They point out that the parliament of Canada had certain rights to pass laws touching liquor from the standpoint of revenue and of trade and commerce, but where, as was pointed out, it was merely a question of manufacturing, then the province itself would have power to proInbit if it was only a local matter.
Take the case of a match factory. I quite understand that if the danger from matches Jay in their use by the public at large, pos-sibiy an argument might be raised by the Minister of Labour that it was a matter with which this House could deal, because it was a matter of Dominion concern, but there is no pretense that the danger is to the public; the danger is to the manufacturers themselves, to the people working m the factory in Deseronto, or Hull, or Halifax, or wherever it may be. The people working in that local factory are the people this House is asked to protect. I submit with all deference, and ask the leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to consider the question: Is it reasonably clear that this House has jurisdiction to interfere in the management of this local factory, whose whole business of manufacture is carried on within the small space of half an acre or so of ground? There is no question of trade or commerce involved; they have the right to manufacture under' provincial law.
I do not wish to occupy the time of the House longer, but I hope I have convinced the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) that if he is to follow the example he asks us to follow, that of the mother land, he will have to get a requisition from the manufacturers themselves. Then it will be his duty to see whether there is any ulterior motive, or what it was that may have influenced the manufacturers of that country. He will have to consider whether this is a gold brick that is handed out-as I think it clearly is-by the Diamond Match Company. Then he will have to consider whether this legislation is in the interests' of the country as a whole. And, while he Mr. NORTHRUP.
is making such ample inquiries, he might seek to learn who this Diamond Match Company are. I know nothing about the matter personally, but my information is that this is, beyond comparison, the largest match company in the United States. I do not think the minister will contradict that statement. I speak subject to correction, and have had no means of learning the facts, because our trade and navigation returns are made up in such a way that it is impossible to learn what the importation of matches really is, but I am informed, and would like to know whether it is a fact, that not a dollar's worth of matches manufactured by the Diamond Match Company has come into Canada, except in the short time that elapsed between the burning down of the Eddy Company's factory and the rebuilding thereof. If these are facts they are very significant. Supposing that this House has jurisdiction, I hope the minister will consider what he is submitting our manufacturers of matches to. He is asking the small manufacturers to put themselves within the grasp of a mighty trust by compelling them to manufacture under a formula which this trust allows them to use, and to use, of course, on the trust's own terms. If they manufacture under a fixed royalty, it must be made known to the trust where the business is being done, and so the manufacturer must make known to a competitor who is strong enough to crush him in a week the very facts that it is necessary for the success of his business that he should withhold. And so the victim is subject to conditions for the calculation of the royalty that are more onerous and dangerous than the payment of the royalty itself. I trust the Minister of Labour will satisfy himself whether he has the right to pass this legislation, and also whether it will be beneficial to this country, and, after that, whether the evils of which he speaks cannot be prevented by the provincial authorities. I trust he will do this before he asks this House to pass this legislation.


Wilfrid Laurier: I followed very closely the argument of my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup). For this evening, at all events, it would be sufficient, I am sure, if, without going into the merits of the question of the advisability of passing this legislation, which may be more fully considered when we come to the second reading of the Bill. I confine myself to considering whether we have, or have not, 'the right to pass this proposed legislation. The hon. gentleman has argued that it is beyond our powers, and that such legislation, if it can be passed at all, can only be passed by the provinces. Perhaps it will be sufficient for the present' purposes for me to state, as

stated already by my 'hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. King), that, before introducing this Bill, he consulted the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice assured him that he had authority to pass this legislation. The Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Aylesworth), is a good lawyer; my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup), is a good lawyer. This is not the first time when good lawyers have differed in opinion. Perhaps my hon. friend will permit me to say that when we find the Minister of Justice on one side of a question and an eminent member of the House and of the legal profession on the other side, it will be safer for us to follow the view of the Minister of Justice. .If the Minister of Justice is astray in his opinion, and, following that opinion, we pass legislation which is beyond our authority, the worst that can happen will be that the manufacturers of matches who, my hon. friend says, would be oppressed by that enactment, will not obey it, but will go on manufacturing, as they are doing to-day,-that is, the Bill will be a dead letter. But what are we to do when eminent members of the legal profession differ ? I think we can safely trust to the legal advisor of the government and the House, until his opinion is set aside by the courts of law. In the opinion of the Minister of Justice, if it has been properly stated, we have the power to pass this law. But my hon. friend (Mr. Northrup), as a member of the legal profession, will agree with me that no legal opinion should be criticised unless we have it in writing before us. If the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice has been correctly stated, that we have jurisdiction in this matter, because -this is a proposed law for the good of the country, I can only say that, that does not commend itself to my judgment. But for other reasons, I think the hon. Minister of Justice is quite correct, and in this respect I differ with my hon. friend. This is a Bill to prohibit the manufacture and importation of matches made with white phosphorus. We have discussed simply the prohibition as to manufacture. But, if it be the opinion of the people of this country that the use of matches manufactured with white phosphorus is injurious to health, the power to prevent the importation of such matches must reside some. where.
It either resides in the Dominion parliament or in the local legislature. Now, my hon. friend will' not differ with me when I assert that the power to prohibit the importation of matches resides with this parliament, and does not reside with the local legislatures. So far, therefore, we have jurisdiction in this parliament to prevent the importation or manufacture. That is enough to give us jurisdiction here. Later
on in the Bill we shall have to consider whether we can prevent the manufacture as well as the importation. It seems to me that if we have power in this parliament to prohibit the importation of matches, therefore we have in this parliament power to say: You shall not manufacture matches in this country. It seems to me that the authority to prohibit importation carries with it the authority to prohibit the manufacture. At all events, I would take that ground. But I will go a step further. My hon. friend has stated that whilst we have jurisdiction in this matter on all matters of trade, the manufacturer is not a trader. Well, my hon. friend will agree that this is a very technical view to take of the matter. It is true, he says, that the manufacturer becomes a trader when he sells. But let me observe that the manufacture is made to be sold, the manufacturer has no other object than to sell his goods; therefore, if that is the object of his business, he is a trader in the broad sense of the term. The manufacturer being certainly a trader, therefore we have power in this Bill to regulate this opera tion of making matches. My hon. friend said, also, that we could not consider the question in this way, because, whilst we have power to regulate trade and commerce, this is a law to regulate a manufacture. It is simply a law to prohibit the manufacture of matches in a certain way. This also seems to me highly technical. It is very true that the object of the law is to prevent a certain kind of manufacture, but it is also true that it is a regulation which would compel the manufacturer to use certain ingredients instead of others, and would prohibit him from manufacturing them with phosphorus and force him to manufacture with something else. Therefore, it seems to me that from this point of view, also, the matter is one which comes properly within our purview. The object of the present Bill Is to prevent the saie of certain matches, which is enough to give us jurisdiction, and I think that alone would warrant us in passing this resolution. The Bill will come again before us for a second reading, and for my part I shall read again the argument of my hon. friend to see whether my more deliberate judgment confirms me in this view. One other observation upon the merits of this Bill. My hon. friend said that this was a measure which would result in profit to a certain manufacturing company which holds a patent in the United States. But I think that point has been answered already by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor), who has said that this company, which has a patent under the laws of Ontario, has not used its patent, and therefore it has lost its power, and we have the ' right to use the patent. So, on the whole.

I think we can proceed with this legislation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Let me say, first, that I think the Minister of Labour fell into error when he cited the leader of the opposition as an authority for the proposition that this was a Bill for the regulation of trade and commerce. It is true that in so far as the Bill does prohibit the importation of these matches, it is dealing with the regulation of trade and commerce, and is to that extent within our jurisdiction. But I would like to point out that the leader of the opposition did not express any opinion upon the question of our jurisdiction to deal with this matter the other day, and that although rule 50 of the House required Bills relating to trade to be introduced by a resolution, that did not imply that it was a Bill for the regulation of trade and commerce, because the rule prescribes that any Bill that relates to trade and commerce shall be introduced through a resolution. Now, you may have many Bills that relate to trade and commerce, the purpose whereof will not be the regulation of trade and commerce. For my part, I would be disposed to think, differing in that respect from the Prime Minister, that in so far as this legislation going further than dealing with the question of prohibition of importation, it can be justified as being within the jurisdiction of this parliament, it would be in virtue of the general clauses which give the jurisdiction to legislate in regard to the peace, order and good government of Canada, and more especially the clause at the end, which gives jurisdiction in all matters not specially reserved to the provinces. But it would seem to me clear that this legislation cannot be justified as being a regulation of trade and commerce. Now, I am not without knowing that when we were first called upon to apply the British North America Act there was a pretty general impression that the regulation of trade and commerce meant the regulation of the carrying on of all the operations of buying and selling, so much so that it was urged in our province that the legislature could not deal with laws limiting the location in which a butcher's stali could be established, because it was said that that was a regulation of trade and commerce. Now, as my hon. friend from Hasting (Mr. Northrup) has pointed out, I think their lordships of the Privy Council have made it clear that what is meant by a regulation of trade and commerce is a regulation of trade and commerce in general, not the making of laws to govern one particular trade. In the case of the insurance company, I think they made it clear that though the carrying on for profit of the business of insurance was a trade, or commercial business, it was within the power Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
of the provinces to legislate as to what sort of contract should be made in the prosecution of that business. The objection made was precisely this: You are regulating trade and commerce. Their lordships said: No, such legislation is not regulating trade and commerce in general; it is not regulating interprovincial trade, nor trade with other countries, nor making any regulation with regard to trade in general applicable throughout the Dominion. I think here, if wi are dealing with trade at all, we are clearly dealing with what is going to be prohibited in one particular manufacture, and if a manufacture is to be considered a trade, then we are making a law for one trade. Now, how it can be said that in doing that we are regulating trade and commerce in the' general way in which the Privy Council says the provision that we have power to regulate trade and commerce is to be interpreted, I fail to see. Now, the Prime Minister has justified this Bill by saying that it was a Bill to prohibit the selling of those matches, and that it has been conceded by the hon. member for Hastings that the operation of buying and selling was an operation of trade, whether a manufacture or not.
I have looked at the Bill and the resolution, and I have been rather struck with the fact that the clause of the English Bill does prohibit the importation, manufacture and sale, while neither the resolution nor the Bill, as I read them and I think I have read them correctly, prohibits the sale of these articles. Even if this Bill should be passed, although there would be a prohibition in it against the importation and manufacture there would be no prohibition against the sale of matches of this kind. As far as the argument in favour of our jurisdiction rests upon prohibition of the sale it necessarily falls because we are not trying to prohibit the sale by the Bill. 1 would not perhaps like to be quite as positive as my hon. friend from East Hastings, but it would seem to me that if we have jurisdiction it must be because of the fact that you do not find in the subjects exclusively allotted to the provinces the subject matter of the protection of health. In that connection a very Serious question arises whether you do not find this within the subjects exclusively allotted to the provinces by reason of the fact that after the particular things that are found in section 92 enumerating the powers of the provinces you have the last one which is general, ' All matters of a merely local or private nature in the province/ and as has been pointed out by the hon. member for East Hastings what this Bill, outside of the question of importation, deals with is purely and simply a question in the interest of health and in the interest of the health of a limited

class of people employed in a factory in a particular locality or in a number of factories in different localities. It seems-to me, prima facie, that there is a very serious question whether in undertaking to do this we are not undertaking to determine what, from the point of view of the protection of the health of a certain number of individuals belonging to a certain class of the community, shall be permitted in a factory in a particular locality. I do not want to go into the merits of the matter, but it would seem to me that the decision of this question, whether this is to be prohibited or not, depends upon a careful investigation of the manner in which particular manufactories are carried on, so much so, that I would conclude from what I have listened to from the Minister of Labour-and listened to with a great deal of admiration-that it might be a perfectly true thing that while in one factory the using of white phosphorus under certain conditions would be extremely dangerous, in another factory by taking proper precautions it might be perfectly safe. If that is a correct view of it we are undertaking to determine whether or not a thing should be permitted when whether it would be proper to permit it depends to a large extent on the particular conditions of the different factories. I am not speaking of this for the purpose of discussing the merits at all, but I mention it because it seems to me to give considerable force to the proposition that the regulating of things of this kind is dealing with things of a purely local nature within the province. I do not flatter myself that any greater weight would be attached to my own opinion than to the opinion of my hon. friend from East Hastings, and of course I do not expect to outweigh in the scale the opinion of my right hon. friend the leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) or that of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Aylesworth), but I did gather, and I do not say it at all by way of depreciating the opinion, but merely for the sake of correctness, that the opinion which the hon. Minister of Labour had received was that of the Deputy Minister of Justice. I do not want to depreciate that opinion in any way because that gentleman is one for whom I have the very highest respect and I would treat any opinion given by him with a great deal of deference. But while I am quite sure that this House would feel justified, as the leader of the House has pointed out this evening, in following the advice of the Minister of Justice, I think it is a perfectly proper thing, when there does exist what I think after what has been said by both sides may fairly be conceded to be a grave doubt as to our jurisdiction in this matter, that the Minister of Justice, should give consideration to what has been submitted. None of
us pretends to infallibility on these matters. It is a general saying that doctors differ, some people say that lawyers could not live at all if they did not differ, and I suppose it is expected that they shall differ. With the merits of the question I understand that we will have occasion to deal when the Bill comes up. Upon those merits I have only to say that in so far as the purpose which is sought to be attained by this legislation is concerned the minister would have the hearty sympathy of every member of this House. I am sure that we are all desirous of assisting the Department of Labour in doing everything not only that may be absolutely necessary, but that may be substantially useful for the protection of the health of all classes of this community and more particularly I think it is fair to say of those classes who are more exposed and have the least within their own hands, the power to control the conditions under which they live." Upon that I think there will be no possible difference in this House. But the matter when we come to deal with it upon its merits, resolves itself into the question: Is it necessary to go as far as to absolutely prohibit this manufacture in order to attain the results sought to be attained? If it is so, I, for my part, would not hesitate to adopt it. On the other hand, I think we ought to look into the matter carefully because it is possible that the facts would bear out the conclusion of the Royal Commission in England, cited by my hon. friend from East Hastings and also by the Minister of Labour, that by taking proper precautions, which might properly form the subject matter, of factory Acts within the provinces, this material could be safely utilized, and if so 1 think we ought to hesitate before making an absolute prohibition.


Adam Brown Crosby: Mr. Chair, man, I just want to say a word in regard to this Bill. We have a match factory at Halifax. I listened to the very able manner in which the hon. Minister of Labou-(Mr. King) introduced his resolution, and his presentation of the matter would almost persuade anybody that the Bill was such a one as we should adopt at once. But, having heard the lawyers on this side, and the right hon. the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), whom I always believed was a lawyer, on the other side, there seems to be some trouble as to the constitutionality of this Bill. Of that I have no desire to speak at all. But, I want to say a word with regard to the sickness said to have been brought about by the use of white phosphorus in the making of matches. In the city of Halifax we have a factory that, 1 think, has been engaged for some sixty or seventy years in the manufacture of matches and, as far as I can discsver, there has never been any person who has been

afflicted by the use of phosphorus. The foreman of that factory is 55 years of age, I think he has worked in the factory for 40 years, and he is quite a healthy man. In fact he is so healthy that he is actively engaged in politics and he is about to run an election, which is the best evidence you can get that there is nothing the matter with his jaws. I am afraid that if you are to take it that the want of teeth indicates that a man has worked in a match factory, you will come to the conclusion that some of the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have been engaged in the business. In Nova Scotia we have had a Factories Act for many years, and as the inspector resides near the match factory, I am quite confident that if there was anything in that factory detrimental to the health of the employees the inspector would have reported it. The Minister of Labour laboured hard to give us evidence in support of his theory, and he told us that ol the five factories in the Dominion there had been only three fatal cases of necrosis.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The three fatal cases were within the last year.


Adam Brown Crosby: If the Minister of Labour was going to make an argument on that point he should have traced the matter back to former years, and given us fuller information about it. I want it to be understood that the use of white phosphorus has not affected our employees in the match factory at. Halifax. I understood the Minister of Labour to say that Mr. Rowley, manager of the Eddy factory was perfectly satisfied with this Bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not say he was satisfied, but that he authorized me to say that the Eddy Company did not intend to offer any opposition.


Adam Brown Crosby: I also understood from the minister that Mr. Corbett, of Halifax, and Mr. Flewelling of New Brunswick did not intend to oppose it, and while I am not always sure that the desire of the manufacturers should be followed, I am specially here to speak for the people who work in the factory. Now, suppose we find that the substitute for white jphosphorus is such an expensive article that the manufacturer in Halifax could not continue in the business it would mean that 15 or 20 hands skilled in this kind of work would be thrown out of employment and might not be able to find a means of livelihood elsewhere. I am not so much concerned about the company who own the match factory, because like most manufacturers, they are fairly well off-at least so the farm ers say, and we are sometimes inclined to believe what the farmers say when it suits us. This Bill, according to its terms will not come into force until 1912, and unless Mr. CROSBY.
we can find that the substitute for white phosphorus is going to put Canadian match manufacturers in as good a position to hold the market as they are in at present, I think, seeing that we have been for years and years operating under the present mode of manufacture, it would not do any harm to defer the coming into force of the Bid until 1913, when we might be able to obtain further information on the subject. I am one of those who believe that everything that is used in Canada should be manufactured in Canada, and we should be careful not to take any step that would in any possible way interfere with our existing industries. Of course, I would not advocate the manufacture of anything that would be detrimental to the health of our people, but I have a strong belief that in the city of Halifax and in the province oi Nova Scotia, under our Factories Act no injurious process of manufacture would be allowed. The entire argument of the Minister of Labour was based on conditions which were found to exist in other countries and not because of any evil condition existing in Canada, so that even if the Bill is found to be constitutional by the Department of Justice, we might at least postpone its operation until the year 1913.
"Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds). I asked the Minister of Labour if the Diamond Match Company had complied with the Patent Act and commenced manufacturing in Canada and he answered that he was not aware that they had. I understand from him that this patent was taken out nine years ago by two Frenchmen who assigned it to the Diamond people a year or two ago. Under our patent law the patentee must commence manufacture within two years, and before the minister proceeds with the second reading of the Bill I ask him to inquire at the patent office as to when this patent was obtained, and if they have complied with the law.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am informed that the patent is held under section 44 of the Patent Act which does not insist upon the manufacture of the patented article, but only on the payment of certain prescribed fees. These fees have been paid I believe, and the patents will not expire until 1917.
. Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds). As I understand it they must commence, the manufacture of the patented article within two years after the issue of the patent, and unless that law has been complied with this government ought not to pass an Act to compel the manufacturers of Canada to pay a royalty to some citizens of the United States. The government are in possession of the formula, and if they have not complied with the law the government can give

that formula to the manufacturers of this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Section 44 of the Patent Act gives the power I have reference to.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The hon. minister, in his introduction, mentioned the fact that what is called sesquisulphide might be used instead of white phosphorus; but if my information is correct sesquisulphide itself contains white phosphorus, so that under this resolution and the Bill founded on it, this very sulphite could not be used at all and matches could not be manufactured with it or imported. How are you going to manufacture matches in this country if white phosphorus is not to be used at all? With regard to the horrible disease sometimes caused by the use of phosphorus, I remember very well seeing cases of it in London when I was a medical student, and I quite recollect the discussion and agitation that took place there with regard to it. I have not heard much about it lately, but new regulations were enforced in the old country to put a stop to the disease, and from what was said to-night regarding the report of the Royal Commission, no doubt these regulations had the effect of largely, if not entirely, stamping it out. I did not know, until this matter came up, that there were any cases of this disease in Canada. We have had for a number of years a match factory at Hampton, 20 miles from St. John, where they have been using phosphorus, and there has never been a case of this phosphorus necrosis that I know of among the employees there. Has the minister any different information?	'


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
John Waterhouse Daniel: But it is made, with white phosphorus all the same.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time, and concurred in.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not aware of any.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I have been connected; with the hospital of St. John a good many years, and if there had been any cases of phosphorus necrosis in the Hampton factory they would have been taken to that hospital, so that I feel quite satisfied there has been none ; and judging by the report of the Royal Commission it would seem that the disease can be eradicated from our factories, if it exists in any, by the enforcement of proper regulations. No doubt in by gone times, in t-hes j large factories where phosphorus was used, and there was very little ventilation, the fume# of the phosphorus occasioned this disease ; but down with us, under better circumstances, this disease is unknown. 1 quite agree that even if in one factorv in Canada there has been found a case of this-disease, the danger should be put a stop to by legislation if possible ; but at the same time I would like the minister to state if lie has information whether the sesquisulphide does not itself contain white phosphorus, and therefore, would be interdicted by the passing of this resolution.
movea tor Ieave to introduce Bill No. 96, to prohibit the Manufacture and Importation of Matches made with White Phosphorus.


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

[Stage Direction]
House in committee to consider the following proposed resolution:-
Resolved, that it is expedient, in connection with Bill 22 now before this House, to provide for the prohibition of the importation, manufacture, sale and use of opium for other than scientific and medicinal purposes; to empower magistrates to grant warrants, to search for opium in any place in which it is suspected that opium may be found, and to authorize the destruction thereof; to provide penalties for violations of the Act; and to empower the Governor in Council to make such regulations as are necessary.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time, and concurred in.
Mr. KING moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 97, to prohibit the Importation,
[Stage Direction]
Manufacture, Sale and Use of Opium for other than Scientific or Medicinal purposes.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee to consider the following proposed resolution:-
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide for the prohibition of the sale and use of cocaine and morphine for other than medicinal or [DOT] scientific purposes.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time, and concurred in.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment *of the House.
Charles Joseph Doherty: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


Wilfrid Laurier: Supply, continuing the estimates of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, January 20, 1911.