1912-02-05

THE DUTY ON LUMBER.

Mr. TURRIFF.: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask the Alinister of Customs Whether it is true, as reported in the Winnipeg ' Free Press,' that in ia shipment of 20 cars of lumber that came in lately, the appraisers, under instructions, went through the cars and examined the lumber piece by piece, and found in one car nine pieces that, showed marks of the planer on the edge, and in another car only four pieces that showed marks of the planer. What I want to ask is whether, if that was the case, the consignee was obliged to pay 25 per cent duty on all of the lumber, or was the portion that did not show marks of the planer allowed to come in free?


Air. SPEAKER.: That is scarcely the kind of a question that can be put, with the expectation that the answer can be given by the minister on the spur of the moment. It would require information being obtained from another source.


John Gillanders Turriff: I will give notice, then, that on the first convenient occasion I will bring the matter up.



THE PANAMA CANAL.

Air. SINCLAIR.: I would ask permission to draw the attention of the Prime Alinister to a report in the newspapers of the United States regarding the fixing of tolls on the Panama canal. Though it would seem a little early to deal with tins ques-
[DOT]2447


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The lion., member is scarcely in order in discussing that question at this stage.


John Howard Sinclair: I regard it as a question of special importance, Mr. Speaker, so much so that I hope I shall be permitted at the present time to ask the Prime Minister a question in regard to it.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Under the rules of the House the hon. gentleman should not introduce anything of a controversial nature-


John Howard Sinclair: This is not controversial.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Except it be to ask a question, an hon. member desires to bring up something of a special and urgent nature, he might do so by getting the permission to move the adjournment of the House.


Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister).: The hon. gentleman might be permitted to read the despatch for the purpose of asking a question, though I am afraid I cannot give him -any answer in regard to it_ to-day. But I would like to know what it is, if the House has no objection.


John Howard Sinclair: The despatch which I find in the American papers is as follows:
Washington, D.C., Feb. 3, 1912.-Senators who discussed the symposium giving the views of shipping men and exporters on cana-l tolls, said the question of tolls should be soon settled .
Senator Brandeger, chairman of the Senate Committee on Interoceanic Canals, said that he was emphatically in favour of rebating the tolls paid by American ships. ' American shipping interests,' he said, 'should be encouraged to use the canal to develop our foreign trade.'
Senator Penrose said: ' The canal is not alone a war measure, but is an industrial project which is expected to advance the commercial -interests of the United States. As liberal concessions -as are possible under the treaty should be made to our own ships, and wide discretion should be left with the President in fixing the tonnage rates.
The proposal is made in some of the papers of the United States that the ships of that country be admitted at a less rate than the ships of other nations. It has been proposed that $1 a ton should be charged to ships belonging to foreign countries, and 50 cents a tom to ships belonging to the United States. I would regard that as a violation of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, which I think will be found to provide that no discrimination should be given to vessels of Mr. SINCLAIR.
the United States passing through the canal. The proposal in the despatch which I have read is to give a rebate to American ships in order to encourage American commerce. I submit that that is also a violation of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. The attention of the United States authorities might be drawn to the manner in which Canada has treated the United States in regard to the St. Lawrence route, on which we have spent something like $100,000,000 to provide a channel for -ships from the ocean to the Great Lakes, through which we allow the ships of the United States to pass free.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member is certainly going beyond the point of asking a question.


John Howard Sinclair: My suggestion to the Prime Minister is that he look into the mat ter, and endeavour to get for Canadian vessels passing through the Panama canal as good terms as possible.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman was good enough to give me an intimation that he proposed to ask me that question; but I only received it on entering the House to-day, when the despatch to which he alludes had not been brought to my attention. As far as I understand it, the despatch is based on nothing more than newspaper discussion on some proposal which has been made in Congress. There has been no definite action taken by the government of the United States up to the present time. Howeve-r, I shall be glad to look at the despatch, and later perhaps it may be convenient to allude to the subject again. The government will give it consideration at the earliest possible moment.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 72) to incorporate the Sterling Life Assurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Blain.
Mr. BLAIN.: I have a little amendment to propose to this clause. I move that the name of William F. Clews he added to the directorate.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: As this is an important amendment, the clause will have to stand.


Richard Blain: In that case I would give notice also of some other trifling amendments. I propose in clause five to substitute $100,000 for $75,000. In clause seven 1 intend to move that the words ' may take ' be struck out and the words ' may make ' substituted. As the Bill has to stand until to-morrow, I would ask you,

Mr. Chairman, to make a note of these proposed amendments.
Progress reported.



THE HARBOUR OF HAMILTON.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 32) respecting the Harbour of Hamilton.-Mr. Stewart.
On section 14,
Mr. CROCKET-.- This section gives power to expropriate, and the Select Standing Committee reports that such power is not covered by the'notice. The same objection applies to clause 18.
Section 14 allowed to stand.
Section 18 allowed to stand.
Progress reported.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I might draw attention to the fact that the Private Bills Committee in reporting this Bill to the House drew attention to it ih the following words:
In regard to the last mentioned Bill, your committee desire to draw the attention of the House, pursuant to rule 106, to the powers of expropriation granted under sections 14 and 18 of the Bill which do not appear to have been contemplated in the notice or petition for the same as reported upon by the examiner of petitions for private Bills on 1st December last.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 35) respecting the Architectural Institute of Canada, and to change its name to The Royal Architectural Institute of Canada.-Sir Edmund Osier.
Bill (No. 71) respecting a patent of the Spirella Company of Canada, Limited. -Mr. German.
Bill (No. 53) respecting patents of Edmund F. Piper.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill (No. 29) respecting the Dominion Guarantee Company, Limited, and to change its name to The Dominion Gresham Guarantee and Casualty Company.-Mr. Barker.
Bill (No. 63) to incorporate the Premier Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Bennett (Calgary).

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally aire indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Who solicited the various contracts for government advertisements published in ' Le Devoir,' ' L'Ev^nement,' 'La Patrie ' and the Quebec ' Chronicle '?
2.	Were any tenders called for such advertisements?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to call for tenders in the future when such advertisements are required?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	There was no solicitation.
2.	No.
3.	It lias never been the practice of the government to ask for tenders for advertising. Accounts for advertising are audited by the Department of Public Printing and Stationery. It is the intention of the government to continue the practice which obtained in the past/


VICKERS-MAXIM COMPANY.
Mr. SEVIGNY:: 1.	Is the Vickers-Maxim Company, which contracted for the construction of a dry-dock at Montreal, * incorporated under the Companies Act?
2.	If so, what are the names of the shareholders of the said company?
3.	How much has been paid by each of the
shareholders on his shares?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Vickers Sons & Maxim Limited, the company which made application to the Department of Public Works for approval of plans and specifications of a dry-dock to be constructed at Montreal is not a Canadian company. The agreement with said department with concurrence of Vickers Sons & Maxim Limited, was entered into by Canadian Vickers Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act of Canada.
2.	The names of the applicants for incorporation of Canadian Vickers, Limited, are as follows: Albert Vickers, chairman of Vickers, Limited; Sir Vincent Henry Pen-laver Caillard, Knight Bachelor, both of London, England; Frederick Orr Lewis, ana James Graham Lewis, Merchants; Sir Hugh Montague Allan, Knight Bachelor, and Preble Macintosh, all of Montreal. There is no further information respecting the shareholders of the company.
3.	The government has no information on this question.


I.C.E.-EMPLOYERS' RETIREMENT FUND.
Mr. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: Does the government intend to give back to the employees of the Intercolonial railway who were dismissed for political reasons, the sums paid by them into the retirement fund for the employees of that railway, as provided for in the Statute 6-7 Edward VII., chapter 22?


Mr. COCHRANE:: This will be dealt with according to the statutes governing this matter.


IMMIGRATION OFFICE IN LONDON,
[Stage Direction]
'	ONTARIO.
Mr. ELSON:: Is it the intention of the government to open an immigration and distribution office in the city of London, Ontario, together with a suitable building in which farm labourers and others can he cared for during the time they are waiting for employment?


Mr. ROGERS.: The matter is under consideration.


WHARF AT L'ASSOMPTION.
Mr. SEGUIN:: Would the hon. Minister of Public Works inform the House if the different amounts voted in the estimates for 1911-12 by the present parliament, but omitted in the estimates for 1912-13, for the construction of a wharf at L'Assomption, an ice-breaker at St. Gerard de Magella, an ice-breaker on the river L'Achigan and a public building in the town of Laurentides, will be placed in the supplementary estimates of this session, in order that these various works which are of great importance to the different localities concerned may be done during the present fiscal year?


Mr. MONK.: These works are all under careful consideration, but it will be impossible to state, at this date, what items will be placed in the supplementary estimates, which will be laid before parliament this session.
PUBLIC BUILDING AT LAURENTIDES. Mr. SEGUIN:
1.	Has the Public Works Department acquired a property in the town of Laurentides for the purpose of constructing a public building thereon?
2.	If not, does the department purpose in the near future making such a purchase in having such building erected, for which a sum was placed in the estimates of 1911-12?
3.	If the department has given up the idea of constructing such public building in the town of Laurentides, what are the reasons and at whose request?


Mr. MONK:: 1.	No.
2 and 3. The matter is now receiving consideration.


ICE-BREAKER AT ST. GERARD.
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Did the department of Public Works during the year 1911 ask for tenders for the construction of an ice-breaker at St. Gerard in the County of L'Assumption ?
2.	If so, who tendered and what are the amounts ?
3.	Was the contract for such ice-breaker
assigned? If so, to whom and for what amount?	.
4.	If the contract has not been given, does the department intend to soon proceed with that work and utilize for that purpose the amount voted in the estimates of 1911-12?


Air. COCHRANE.: 5. If the department does not intend to use the money appropriated for such icebreaker and to have it constructed, what reasons are given for the abandonment of the work and at whose request was it abandoned?


Mr. MONK:: 1.	Yes,
2.	Eugene Patenaude, $3,457; Joseph Ren-aud, $4,090.
3.	No.	,
4.	No, the work is not considered necessary in the public interest.
5.	Inquiry was made by the department, concerning this work, and from information secured, it was deemed to be unnecessary.
HON. MR. LEMIEUX AND DISMISSALS. Mr. BELLEMARE:
1. Is the government aware that in the newspaper ' Le Devoir ' on the 30th January last an article appeared the statements contained in which article are an alleged flagrant (contradiction of declarations previously by an honourable member of this House, the ex-Postmaster General, and which
article reeads as follows:-___	.
Mr Lemieux and the Dismissals.
Editor of ' Le Devoir,'
Dear sir,-In reply to the defiance of hon. Air. Lemieux to produce the names of ten employees that were dismissed in 1896, you will find enclosed a list of the names of those who were dismissed on the 30th December, 1896, by the Laurier government, of which hon. Air. Lemieux was then one of the most zealous friends, although simple member for
G On6 the 30th December, 1896, these brave fathers of families were, on the eve of New Year's Day, oast out on the street, as the hon. plenipotentiary to Japan would express it, and one of the number was my poor father. Hence it is that I speak whereof I know. They were sent off without any reason whatsoever, unless it be that they were Blues, and that the Rouges governed.
Now, Air. Editor, Air. Lemieux rages ' against Mr. Monk, asserting that he has dis-1 missed hundreds of brave fathers of families. How conies it that, even as I write, in the county that the Hon. Alinister of Public Works represents, at Lachine, no dismissals have yet been made? The Liberals of Lachme ! who may be dismissed have only to thank hon. Air. Lemieux, for, despite that we kept them in their positions, that gentleman insults a man who is by far his superior. Learn, Mr. ex-minister, that in vain you shout, rage, fume it will have no effect. We know the 5 love for the French Canadians that Mr. * Monk has, and your hysterical cries will j never make us forget the one who has ever been devoted to us.
3 You have asked for ten names; read now the following list and remember as yon count r them that these dismissals were only on the t Lachine canal, at the Lachine locks. On the 30th December, 1896, were dismissed: Adolphe s Leblanc, lockman, Lachine; Alex. Carigan, i lockman, Lachine; Ephron Picard, boom e guardian, Lachine; J. B. St. Aubin, lockman, Lachine; Alex. Clement, lockman, Lachine,

Camile Cousineau, bridge keeper, Laehine; Damase Chartrand, bridge keeper, Laehine; Osear Belanger, lockman, Laehine; Janies Teirney, lockman, Laehine; Edouard Lanzon, lockman. Laehine; Urgel Vian, lookman, Laehine; Theo. Davis, lockman, Laehine; Roderick Hogan, lockman, Laehine; Alexander Snider, lockman, Laehine.
And X will add that two years later they found a way to superannuate Messrs. J. B. Deschamps, canal collector, and Louis Pare, each with a small pension not sufficient for livlihood, happily they had some savings.
Imongst the dismissed was Mr. Damase Chartrand, who had the misfortune of losing a leg through an accident at the locks during the summer of 1896. The Conservative government had made him a bridge keeper, in order to let him have easy work. With the others, on the 31st December, he received, mercilessly, his dismissal. Is this enough, Mr. ex-Minister? You asked for ten names; count them well and let us see if the public will not take you for a joker? Get the facts before fuming against the lion. Minister of Public Work9.
Thanking you, Mr. Editor, for your kindness, I remain, &c.,


RAOUL CARIGAN,
[Stage Direction]
Laehine, son of one of the dismissed.
2.	If so, does the government intend to take steps to find out the truth concerning these statements?
Mr. LEMIEUX.: 
Robert Laird Borden: Stand.


DISMISSALS.
Mr. ETHIER:: 1.	Has Raoul Provost, a civil engineer employed by the Marine and Fisheries Department at Montreal, been dismissed from his position? If so, at whose request?
2.	What are the reasons given in justification of the dismissal of Mr. Provost?
3.	Was there an inquiry and was Mr. Provost informed of the complaint lodged against him?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes, Raoul Prevost was dismissed on the recommendation of the agent of the department at Montreal.
2.	Incompetence and unreliability.


Mr. BELAND:: 1.	Has Pierre Duchaine, boomkeeper, on the St. Maurice been dismissed from his position ?
2.	If so, when, why and was there an inquiry?
3.	At whose request was he dismissed?
4.	By whom was he replaced and who recommended his successor?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes. 2.	(a) 21st November, 1911;
(b)	incompetency, and so reported by the engineer in charge.
3.	Answered by number 2.
4.	(a) Joseph Paquin; (b) Mr. Blondin,.


Mr. BELAND:: 1.	Has L. P. Dalaire, paymaster on the St. Maurice, been dismissed from his position? If so, when, and was there an inquiry?
2 At whose request was he dismissed?
3.	By whom was he replaced, and who recommended his successor?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	(a) Yes. (b) On 28th December, 1911.
(c)	No formal inquiry.
2.	At request of P. E. Blondin, M.P.
3.	By Edward Bellefeuille, recommended by P. E. Blondin, M.P.


R. LAURIER IMMIGRATION AGENT.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	Is R. Laurier. immigration agent at Detroit, Michigan, still in the employ of the government?
2.	If so, what is his salary and the amount of his contingent expenses?
3.	Has he reported during the past two years on his duties performed?
4.	Is he a relative of Sir Wilfrid Laurier?
1.	Mr. ROGERS:
1.	Yes.
2.	Salary, $1,200 per annum. Average contingent expenses during past two years per annum $648.63.
3.	Yes.
4.	The government is not informed


C. A. LAURIER, IMMIGRATION AGENT.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	Is C. A. Laurier, immigration agent at Marquette, Michigan, in 1910, still in the employ of the government?
2.	If so, what is his salary and the amount of his contingent expenses?
3.	Did he make any report on his duties performed during the past two years?
4.	Is he a relative of Sir Wilfrid Laurier?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Salary, $1,620 per annum; Average contingent expenses during past two years per annum $2,285.80.
3.	Yes.

4.	The government has no information in this regard.


UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CO.
Mr. MACLEAN (South York):: 1.	Have any proceedings been commenced under the Anti-Combines Act of 1910, except those in the matter of the United Shoe Machinery Company ?
2.	When was the complaint filed in the Shoe Machinery case F
3.	When did the taking of testimony before the board of investigation begin and is testimony still being taken?
4.	When will the taking of testimony be concluded, and will such testimony be reduced to writing and laid before the House?
5.	What direction over the proceeding by the board is exercised by either the Minister ot Labour or the Minister of Justice?
6.	Did the Minister of Labour have a conference at the city of Ottawa in the fall of 1914 with the president, attorney or other representative of the United Shoe Machinery Company ?
7.	Was application made to the Minister at that interview to suspend or stop any further hearing before the board of investigation, upon the grounds that a satisfactory arrangement had been come to between the complainants and the company?
8.	In an investigation under the Anti-Combines Act, is any one employed by the government to represent the public interests, or have the complainants the power to discontinue the investigation at any time?
9.	What money has been expended and what liabilities have been incurred by the government of Canada to date under the Anti-Combine Act?


Mr. CROTHERS:: 1.	The department has no knowledge of proceedings other than those in the matter of the United Shoe Machinery Company.
2.	The application for the board was filed with Judge Cannon, -at Quebec, November 10, 1910. The order establishing a board was received by the Minister of Labour, February 27, 1911.
3.	(1) November 17, 1911.	(2) The board
[DOT] on January 31 adjourned proceedings until February 6, presumably for the purpose of taking testimony.
4.	(1) It is not known when the taking of testimony will be concluded. (2) Stenographic reports are made of the testimony. (3) The testimony will he laid before the House if ordered.
5.	No direction has been exercised by the present Minister of Labour, nor, in so far as the present minister is aware, by the former minister.
6.	Representatives of the United Shoe Machinery Company, as well as those of the petitioners, waited separately on the Minister of Labour at Ottawa.
7.	No.
8.	Section 30 of the Combines Investigation Act provides as follows: ' Whenever in the opinion of the minister the public


Robert Rogers: interest so requires, the minister may apply to the Minister of Justice to instruct counsel to conduct the investigation before a board, and upon such application the Minister of Justice may instruct counsel accordingly. The fees and expanses allowed to such counsel by the Minister of Justice shall be paid out of such appropriations as are made by parliament to provide for the cost of administering this Act.' (2) The point raised appears to be dealt with in section 18, subsection 2 of the Combines Investigation Act, which provides as follows:	'In deciding any question that
may affect the scope or extent of the investigation, the board shall consider what is required to make the investigation as thorough and complete as the public interest demands.'
9.	(1) For the fiscal year 1910-11, $196.46; for the fiscal year 1911-12, to January 31, $1,701. Total $1,897.46.
(2) There is no knowledge of liabilities other than for expenditures arising out of proceedings before the board established in the case of the United Shoe Machinery Company, the complete accounts in this case have not been yet received.


RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF TRADE OF MONTREAL.
Rodolphe Lemieux: 1 Has the government received the following resolution unanimously adopted by the Board of Trade of Montreal at its annual meeting held on Wednesday the 31st January ultimo:
' That this board views with alarm the exploiting by corporation or individuals of the waters of the St. Lawrence for power purposes, and that in view of the fact that the city of Montreal is the centre of a district which is capable of more water-power development than most other cities in the world, it should have the advantage thereof in the shape of low electric power rates, which are so essential to the growth of a city and to have full development of its manufacturing industries;
' This board is of the opinion that before the Dominion Government sanctions the various schemes now being put forward for the development of hydro-electric power on both the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers, it is essential in the interest of the country generally that the conservation commission should he requested to draw up a comprehensive scheme for the preservation of these rivers as great national waterways of the Dominion, and that such commission should take immediate action so as to prevent the natural resources of the publio domain from passing into the hands of private parties;
'That the Dominion Government is hereby prayed to instruct the Conservation Commission to consider what means it is advisable to adopt, first in regard to the licensing of hvdro-electric companies; second what check it is desirable to put on the increases in the capital of the various companies in order that some means may he evolved for giving the

245S
public electric power at a minimum rate, yet at the same time allowing the various electrical companies to make a reasonable return for their shareholders on the paid-up capital: third, to prevent, if possible, such companies making unwarranted increases in their capital stock on the basis of earnings: and fourth, to consider whether a Hydro-Electric Commission should be established by the Dominion Government to govern rates of power companies on a similar basis to the Board of Railwav Commissioners, or whether it would serve the public interest better for the government to itself develop hydro-electric power and distribute the same on lines similar to those of the Hydro-Electric Commission in Ontario;	. ,
' That the board is further of the opinion that all power developed in Canadian waters will be required for Canadian use, and that no power should be allowed to be diverted from this country;	_
'That this board respectfully reiterates its vermest that in the development of water-powers on the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers navigation interests should be considered paramount, and that no works shall be permitted in these national waterways that would interfere with the development on a larger scale of their navigation facilities if the same should be found advisable.5


Robert Laird Borden: The resolution has been Forwarded to a member of the government.


SIKHS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has the Minister of the Interior given a decision concerning the demand^ made by the Sikhs who have settled in British Columbia?
2.	Will the Sikhs he allowed in the future to bring their wives into Canada?


Mr. BORDEN:: 1.	No.
2.	The matter is receiving consideration. COAL FOR INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.


Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Have tenderers been called for the supply of coal for 1912 for the Intercolonial railway and the Prince Edward Island railway?
2.	If so, when was the last day for receiving said tenders?
3.	How many tenders were received, and who were the tenderers?
4.	For what quantities did each company or person tender?
5.	What was the price per ton offered by each tenderer ?
6.	Have any tenders been accepted? If so, what ones and what are the amounts and prices, respectively?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	January 29, 1912.
3.	Tenders not dealt with.
4.	Answered by No. .3.
5.	Answered by No. 3.
6.	Answered by No. 3.


SALARY OF DEPUTY MINISTER OF JUSTICE.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. CRUISE:
1.	What i9 the present salary of the Deputy
Minister of Justice?	,	.
2.	Since what date lias he been receiving his
present salary?	.
3.	Is he allowed, in addition, to practise as a lawyer apart from his official duties?
4.	Has he, since October 10, 1911, been paid
Urge sum in addition to his salary for
work done for the government?
5.	If so, what amount has been paid to
him?	,
6.	When was said sum paid and for what
service?	.
7.	On what date was the order m council passed authorizing said payment?
Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	$7,000.
2.	April 1, 1908.
3.	Yes, as to briefs in appeal not conflicting with official duties, pursuant to stipulation upon appointment and ever since recognized.
4 and 5. He has been paid the sum of $9,899.24.
6.	January 10, 1912. For services as solicitor and counsel in government cases down to the 4th of May, 1910-as duly certified by Sir Allen Aylesworth, then Minister of Justice, and former ministers.
7.	January 9, 1912.
,T. G. CHARD, INDIAN AGENT.


Mr. CRUISE:: 1.	Has J. G. Cbard, Indian agent at Grand View. Manitoba, been dismisseed?
2.	Was there any charge made against Chard? If so, by whom?
3.	Was any investigation held to ascertain whether or not the charge, if any, was true?
4.	Who ha9 been appointed to fill the vacancy?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Complaints have been made on different occasions by the department's responsible officers of Mr. Chard's unsatisfactory service.
3.	The department did not consider an investigation necessary.
4.	Mr. R. Tait, of Grand View.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, or other documents containing applications or requests for the establishment of a car ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, and of all correspondence, telegrams, reports, surveys and other documents, showing the cost of the same, and of widening the gauge of the Prince Edward Island railway, together with all other information available as to the desirability or necessity of said projects.-Mr. Pardee.
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all ruling or decisions made lay the Minister of Customs, or the tariff hoard of the Department of Customs, since the 10th day of October last, in reference to the duty payable in respect to jute-cloth, traction engines and partially dressed lumber, respectively; and likewise in reference to any other articles imported into Canada concerning which there has been any change in the rate of duty exacted at any time since the said date, as compared to the rate of duty exacted on such articles respectively immediately prior to said date.-Mr. Turriff.
For a return showing whether any order for goods has been given by the Department of Public Works since October 1, 1911, at Montreal, Quebec, St. John and Halifax; tenders asked for in each case; orders for goods given without tenders; names of firms, and amounts in each case.-Mr. Macdonald.
For a copy of all 'letters, telegrams, petitions or other papers relating to any change or proposed change of postmasters at Powassan between January 1, 1906, and January 1, 1912.- Mr. Arthurs.
For a copy of all documents, letters, petitions reports, recommendations, declarations, proceedings of inquiry and all other documents relating to the dismissal of Mederic Picotle as messenger of the House of Commons and the appointment of his successor, Henry Coffin.

Mr. Seguin.
For a copy of all papers, letters, orders in council and other documents respecting the superannuation of the honourable judges Sir Alexander Lacoste, J. A. Ouimet and C. J. Doherty.-Mr. Ethier.
For a copy of all correspondence, memorials or communiications of any kind between the government of the province of Ontario and the Dominion government since January 1. 1908, respecting the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba or the division' of the territory of Keewatin.-Mr. Meighen.
For a copy of the inquiry made by the Railway Department respecting the accident incurred by Geoffrey Bourque, of Lao an Sau-mon, in the yard of the Intercolonial railway, at Campbellton, in the month of November or December, 1911, also for all papers and correspondence exchanged since on the subject. -Mr. Boulay.
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, reports and other documents relating to the notice of cancellation of mail contract between Scott Junction and the station in the county of Beauce.-Mr. Belaud.
For a copy of all tenders, contracts, reports and other memoranda of the engineers of the Department of Public Works, orders in council, correspondence and all other documents relating to the construction of a dam for storage purposes at the foot of Lake Temis-kaming.-Mr. Pugsley.
For a copy of the memorandum of Admiral Kingsmill, dated October 9, 1911, referred to by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in answer to a question put to him on the 15t'h January, 1912.-Mr. Lemieux.
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, complaints, charges or other documents in the possession of the Department of Customs, relating to the dismissal of S. M. Ferguson, preventive officer at Oyster Ponds, Guysborough county, Nova Scotia, and relat-Mr. ROGERS.
ing to the appointment of a man to fill the vacancy caused by such dismissal.-Mr. Sinclair.
For a copy of all letters, complaints, charges, telegrams, petitions, memorials, orders in council or other documents in the possession or under the control of the government, relating to the dismissal of William A. Hattie, from the position of preventive officer at Mulgrave, N.S., and relating to the appointment of a man to fill the vacancy caused by such dismissal.

Mr. Sinclair.
For a ooipy of all correspondence and papers in connection with the -appointment and subsequent dismissal of Eugene Guimond as postmaster at St. Angfile, county of Rimousbi.- Mr. Lemieux.
For a copy of all correspondence addressed to the Minister of Public Works in connection with the dismissal of George T. Harbour, superintendent of the work at the deep water wharf at Gaspe.-Mr. Lemieux.
For a copy of the petitions forwarded to the Minister of Public Works praying for the dismissal of Michel Campeau, and the appointment of Honore Paquette, as caretaker of the postal station in Laurier Ward, Montreal.-Mr. Lemieux.
For a copy of all papers, memorials, resolutions, letters, received from boards of trade, officials or individuals during the years 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912, respecting the location of a quarantine or inspecting station on Law-lor's island, Halifax harbour.-Mr. Maclean (Halifax).
For a copy of all reports, correspondence and papers, relating to the building of a breakwater at Port Richmond, Nova Scotia.- Mr. Kyte.
For a copy of all reports, correspondence and papers relating to the building of a breakwater at Charles Forest's Cove, Richmond county, Nova Scotia.-Mr. Kyte.
For a copy of all documents and of all the correspondence exchanged between A. E. Dou-cet, district engineer, on district B of the Transcontinental railway, and of all other persons relating to the selection of sites for railway stations in the parishes of St. Damien and St. Cajetan d'Armagh, in the county of Bellechasse.-Mr. Lavallce.
For a return showing all the contracts for the conveyance of His Majesty's mails, in which notice of cancellation has been given under the terms of the said contract, between October 10, 1911, -and February 1, 1912, and also the name and address of each contractor and the amount of each contract.-Mr. Lemieux.
For a copy of all documents, papers, inquiries, letters, &c., relating to the dismissal of Thomas Dionne, as postmaster of Caeouna, also the dismissal of Miss Saindon, of Caeouna, and the reinstallation of the said Thomas Dionne in the post office at Caeouna.-Mr. Gauvreau.
For a copy of _ all reports, correspondence and papers relating to the building of the Saint John Valley railway from St. John to Grand Falls, New Brunswick.-Mr. Michaud.

[Stage Direction]
On the notice of motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, wher-

ever a telephone system exists, or is hereafter established, in any rural section of Canada, a telephone should be placed in each post office in such sections by the Post Office Department.
Richard Blain: Mr. Speaker, I would not care to go on with the discussion of this important question in the absence of the hon. Postmaster General. I would, therefore, ask that it be allowed to stand.


STEAM TRAWLING.
John Howard Sinclair: For a copy of all letters, memorials or other documents in the hands or under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries or any department of the government, relating to any action taken on a resolution of the House passed the 6th day of February, 1911, relating to the prohibition of steam trawling on the coast of Canada outside of Canadian waters; also a copy of all departmental instructions, memoranda and reports relating thereto.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in making this
motion, I desire to draw the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, or in his absence, that of the Prime Minister, to the importance of dealing with this question. On the 6th of February of last year I had the honour to move in this House a resolution in regard to this matter, as follows:
That in the opinion of this House, as the mode of fishing known as steam trawling, prosecuted by ships of different nationalities on the coast of Canada outside Canadian waters, is destructive to fish life, it is expedient, in order to conserve the deep sea fisheries, that negotiations be opened with the view of securing an international agreement prohibiting steam trawling on such fish-1 dug grounds for deep sea fish, as the waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the hanks of the North Atlantic adjacent to the coasts of Canada and Newfoundland.
That-resolution was passed by the House, last session and I understand that negotiations were opened by the late government with certain foreign powers and with the British government, looking towards some action which would carry out the views expressed in that resolution. The late government did considerable in the way of discouraging this mode of fishing on the Canadian coasts. Very shortly after the first trawlers appeared on the coasts of Canada, an order in council was passed prohibiting steam trawlers from fishing in Canadian waters, which of course include all the bays, harbours and coast lines of Canada on both the Atlantic and the Pacific. It is contended by the fishermen that this mode of fishing is very disastrous to their interests and very destructive of fish life. The facts in relation to the question were laid pretty fully before the House in the
discussion which took place last year, so that I do not intend to repeat them. However, the step to which I have alluded was taken by the late government to prohibit that mode of fishing in Canadian [DOT]waters.


Robert Laird Borden: On what date was that done?


John Howard Sinclair: In the summer of 1908;
I have not the exact date. Another step was taken a little later. It was discovered that under the old regulations steam trawlers were entitled to share in the fishing bounty given to Canadian fishermen, and an amendment was passed prohibiting this. My principal object in drawing attention to the matter to-day is to press on the present administration the great importance of it, and to express the hope that they may carry on the negotiations which were commenced by the late government, and may arrive at some means of restricting or if possible prohibiting this mode of fishing in Canadian waters.


Robert Laird Borden: The subject to which the hon. gentleman has alluded engaged the attention of the House on more than one occasion. I did not quite gather from him what negotiations have been in progress with respect to the prohibition of such methods of fishing outside of Canadian waters. With whom were the negotiations, and what negotiations were in progress?


John Howard Sinclair: That is what I am trying to find out. Of course I do not know because the documents are in the possession of the government.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought my hon. friend
spoke of certain negotiations, and would like to know what negotiations he had in mind. Does the difficulty complained of arise altogether with the fishermen of the United States or with those of other countries as well?


John Howard Sinclair: I read a statement made by the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), to the effect that the matter had been taken up with the United States and France. I think that statement was made at the Imperial Conference. I am not sure that we have any right to the production of the papers. In fact I have been told by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), that it would be irregular to produce them, and my only object at present is to draw attention to the matter.


Mr. HAZEN.: In consequence of the motion of the hon. member for Guysbor-ough (Mr. Sinclair), I had a little statement prepared which, perhaps, may be of some benefit, with regard to the effects of


Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).: What does the minister say about passing a regulation prohibiting the landing of fish caught by steam trawlers in the harbours of Canada? Would that not go a long way towards stopping this method of fishing?


John Douglas Hazen: Most of the steam trawlers at present operating, land their fish in the United States for United States markets.	[DOT]


John Howard Sinclair: Two were operating on the coast of Nova Scotia last year and landing fish at Canso.


William Chisholm: Operating off Antigonish county.


John Douglas Hazen: While the subject is practically a new one to me, it is well worthy of consideration, and I shall consult with the officials especially charged with the duty of protecting the fisheries with a view to protecting 'the interests of our fishermen.


John Howard Sinclair: I am afraid the minister has not realized the great importance of this question to the fishermen. Holding the views that he does in regard t-o it I would be afraid he would not take any very extreme or active steps in order to prohibit this mode of fishing in Canadian waters. I would refer the minister to a discussion which took place last year when proofs were adduced that this mode of fishing is really destructive to fish life, and that it is impossible for the line and net fishermen to carry on business in the same waters with a steam trawler. I would not like to accept the theory that steam trawling has not injured the fishing in the North Sea. My view is that it has. Investigations have been held in Great Britain and there is a great deal of literature on the question. The British government have gone so far as to employ trawlers of their own to operate in the North Sea and have tabulated the results, showing the large quantities of small and immature fish caught bv the trawlers that had to be thrown overboard because they were too small to be placed on the market. Evidence of that kind was placed on 'Hansard' last session.
This mode of fishing lias only commenced in the United States. The theory prevailed for many years that the bottom of the sea on the coasts of the United States

and Canada were too rough to enable trawlers to operate in our waters. Only a few days ago I received a copy of a resolution moved by Mr. Gardner, of Massachusetts, in the Congress at Washington in regard to this matter. The resolution reads:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.
1. That the Commissioner of Fisheries be, and he is hereby authorized and directed to make an investigation into the method of fishing known as beam trawling and to report to Congress whether or not this method of fishing is destructive to the fish species or is otherwise harmful or undesirable.
Sec. 2. That in the event that the Commissioner of Fisheries finds this method of fishing to be destructive, harmful, or undesirable he shall recommend to Congress such legislation as he may deem necessary.
Sec. 3. That an appropriation is hereby authorized for carrying into effect the provisions of this resolution.
Thus it will be seen that this is a live question in the United States, and in Washington last year I found a great deal of interest taken in it by members of Congress representing districts along the coast. As far as I could judge the sympathy was altogether in favour of standing by the shore fishermen and prohibiting trawling altogether on the coast of the United States. If my hon. friend (Mr. Hazen) will continue the correspondence that has been opened with Washington, he will find a good deal of sympathy there in regard to the abolition of this mode of fishing on the coast. It is only now when it is commencing that it can be stopped. If it is true that it has been destructive in the North sea, it should certainly be stopped here before it becomes established, and before large amounts of capital are invested in it.
I do not wish to make this a controversial question, although certain members of the opposition last year-now on the Speaker's right did endeavour to raise trouble about it in that way; but I will say to my hon. friend that if he can devise any means of dealing with this question, I feel that I can say for my colleagues on this side of the House that he will have their cordial support.


FISHERY PROTECTION SERVICE ON PACIFIC COAST.
Mr. H. S. CLEMENTS (Comox-Atlin) moved:: For a copy of all papers, correspondence and reports between Capt. Newcombe and the Marine and Fishery Department, relating to the patrol and protection service for fisheries on the Pacific coast?
He said: This is not the first time that this subject has been before the House. In 1906 when I had the honour of being a member of this House, the question of the protection of the fisheries of the Domin-Mr. SINCLAIR.
ion, and especially of the Pacific coast, wras under discussion. To my mind, this is a very important question, and worthy of the most careful consideration of the House. The fisheries of this Dominion, and especially of the Pacific coast, are of exceeding value.
1 find that last year the fisheries of the whole Dominion were valued at $29,629,169. Of that sum the fisheries of the Pacific coast contributed $10,314,755, considerably over one-third of the total value of all the fisheries of the Dominion. What I want especially to draw attention to is the inadequate patrol service that is given on the Pacific coast, especially in British Columbia. I understand that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries is fully alive to this question, and I sincerely trust that he will see that a proper protection service is placed upon that coast, sufficient to - protect adequately this great national asset. I think that every hon. member of this House who is aware of the conditions will admit that there is, and has been for a number of years past, a very inadequate service provided on that coast. It was in 1904, I think, that the first urgent demand was made for a protective service. In 1906 it appears that there were 52 foreign vessels poaching in waters that rightly belong to this Dominion, and it is estimated that they made an illegal catch of 41,664,329 lbs. of fish, which is valued at 5 cents a lb. I want the House to understand that 1 am now especially referring to halibut fishing on that coast.' The value of fish caught that I have already mentioned, is estimated at $2,083,216. In 1906 we find that over 200 foreign vessels, that is, other than Rritish or Canadian bottoms, were poaching in those waters, and it is estimated that the average catch since then has been 65,000,000 lbs. to say nothing about the possible 20,000,000, or 25,000,0(10 lbs. of edible fish which are thrown away and do not reach the markets. I think these figures will convince the House of the great importance of this question, and I trust they will interest every hon. member, whether he represents a fishing district or not. It is, I say, a national asset of very great importance, which the government ought to use every endeavour adequately to protect.
Now the boats which are chartered for this fishery protective service are absolutely inadequate for thei purpose. They1 are boats which do not make more than eight or ten knots an hour, and they are not properly equipped to cope with the up-to-date boats that are employed in the poaching business. These latter boats are well equipped with wireless, whereby they may keep in touch with each other, and are able to evade the protective service that has been paid for by this government during the last two or three years. I sincerely hope that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will

see to it that we have at least three thoroughly up-to-date steamers employed on that service, steamers which are able to make at least 15 to 18 knots an hour, thoroughly equipped with wireless, and able to cope successfully with the illegal fishing. Now I do not propose to go back and discuss the different treaties governing this fishing. I understand that the treaty of 1818 which gives us our proper rights and that it yt as only in 1909 that it was pu-t into force, I think the treaty of 1818 ought to he henceforth rigorously carried out, but to my mind the service that has been employed on that coast for the last two or three years has not mended matters a particle. "
Prior to that treaty being enforced our own Canadian fishermen were allowed to catch and sell bait to the foreign fishermen who were then coming into our waters. As it is now, without any protection on the coast of British Columbia, these poachers come in and immediately set about preparing their nets and other equipment to catch their own bait in our bays and inlets and with that bait they catch fish in our waters. My own personal opinion is that, with boats properly equipped, the fishery protection service should not be under the control of the navy. It should be a separate service and the officers in charge of the vessels should be guided by their own judgment and not be hampered by a command to be at a certain point at a certain time. With a proper service these foreign boats that are now poaching would be absolutely driven from our Canadian waters and put out of business. I sincerely trust that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will see that a vote is placed in the estimates for a service to assist in protecting British subjects in the enjoyment of the fisheries of our own waters. If these poachers are not allowed to fish illegally within the three mile limit, if they are driven from our bays so that they cannot clean, dress and pack their fish, they will be absolutely put out of business. It will take a good deal of money to equip a fleet of steamers for this protective service, but when you consider the importance of this great asset and the fact that British Columbia is contributing more than a third of the total product of the fisheries of this Dominion, I think you will admit that it is a service that ought to be equipped at the earliest possible moment. I have much pleasure in stating to the House that I understand the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is thoroughly alive to the importance of this question. There is one other matter in connection with that service which I think is very important, and that has reference to the establishment and operation of wireless telegraph stations along the coast. I understand that at the present time wireless stations are under the control of the naval service. I think it would be much better if that policy were changed and if proper wireless stations were equipped along the coast, not altogether as an aid to the fishery protection service, but from the public standpoint as well as from the protective standpoint. I do not wish to detain the House because I know that my associates from British Columba are far more conversant with this vast subject than I am. I am only speaking from the knowledge which I have gained from having resided in British Columbia, and from what I have learned as to the extent and importance of the fisheries there, and I can only repeat that I sincerely trust that this House, and especially the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, will give this very important question carefu'l consideration. If time would permit I would take up the consideration of the salmon, herring, and other fisheries of that province, but I do not propose to discuss them at the present moment. 1 think that many suggestions could be offered to the minister with respect to the fisheries other than the halibut fishery to which I have especially referred in my remarks.
There are many things that could be done in the interests of our own actual fislier-_ men. The legislation which has been en-' forced during the last few years has operated greatly to the detriment of white, Canadian fishermen in that province and some very drastic change must be made if we want to ensure to the actual, white fisherman, the rights to Which he is entitled and which he does not enjoy at the present time. It is not in the interest of this Dominion, or of .the province, that Japs should engage in the fisheries in the manner in which they are now permitted to do. I could give you many reasons for that opinion, but the question is such a broad one that it would take many hours to discuss it. But, they are depriving the actual white fisherman in that province of his rights.


John Howard Sinclair: Is the hon. gentleman in _ favour of a regulation prohibiting Oriental fishermen from fishing in the waters of the Pacific coast?


Herbert Sylvester Clements: I think I can give the hon. gentleman the information that that question will be dealt with at an early date and in a proper manner. Our actual fishermen are deprived of the rights which belong to them. I could go on and discuss many subjects outside of the Asiatic question with reference to the rights of our own white fishermen. I beleive that the large streams of the province of British Columbia should be thrown open to the actual white fisherman whereby he may save those rights which belong to him and which he does not enjoy at the present time. Li-

censes 'are to-day granted to actual white fishermen, but, they do not control those licenses. They are controlled by corporations, but, while I believe that vested interests should be protected, I also believe that the white fisherman, the fisherman who pulls an oar, should have the right to catch and sell fish to the oanners or in the market which will give him the best value for it. He does not have that right to-day, especially in the waters of the Pacific coast. I should like to go on and discuss many other items in connection with this question, but I know that my associates who have lived in the province for many years and who are more familiar with it than I am, will have something to say with regard to it and therefore I do not propose to say very much more on the subject. I only trust that the minister will give every consideration to the remarks which I have addressed to the House this afternoon on this very important question.


Mr. GEORGE H. BARNARD (Victoria).: Mr. Speaker, as this is a question in which I have taken an active interest, I would not like to have a vote taken upon the resolution without saying a word or two in corroboration of what has been stated by my hon. friend from Coinox-Atlin (Mr. Clements).
He has covered all the ground so far as the question of poaching is concerned so fully that there is very little that I can add. That poaching exists and has existed for a number of years, and that it has existed unchecked can hardly be denied. It has become so open, that it is a common thing to take up a daily newspaper, published in the city of Seattle in the state of Washington, and to find there items reporting the catches taken by American vessels along the coast of British Columbia, and in particular on the coast of Vancouver island. It is also an ordinary thing to read in the American newspapers that -certain vessels are being constructed for the express purpose of going into this business. It has become also common to read the reports of the officials of the Marine and Fisheries Department saying that they are unquestionably unable, with the means at their command, to cope with this abuse. It is common to find the passenger steamers engaged in the coasting trade along the shores of British Columbia coming into port and reporting that they had seen here and there in the different ports along the coast numbers of American vessels using Canadian harbours. It was stated on one occasion, I remember, by the captain of one of these coasting vessels, that the lights of the American fishing schooners in one of the ports of Vancouver island seemed like the lights in the streets of a city. In addition to this, the poachers have become so bold that last year they actually at the Mr. CLEMENTS.
point of the rifle drove the men off the Canadian salmon traps and stole the fish. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is not a nice sort of thing for Canadians to contemplate. Of course, altogether apart from the wasteful methods of these poachers, it puts the people of the province of British Columbia and the people of the whole Dominion in a humiliating position to think that they have a valuable asset in the fisheries of that coast which they are unable to protect. I may say, apropos of the wasteful methods of these poachers that it is a fact that in numbers of eases the halibut beds are being rapidly depleted and that the average size of the fish has dropped from about one hundred pounds to twenty pounds. Now so far as I can ascertain there have been no efforts on the part of the government of Canada to protect the Pacific coast fisheries. The steamer ' Kestrel ' which has now been scrapped was until last summer the vessel upon which the department directly relied for the prevention of this poaching. Well, Mr. Speaker, you might as well try to catch a canary bird by putting salt on its tail as to try to catch one of these gasoline poachers with the ' Kestrel.' During the past six or seven years there have been I think, only three or four of these vtssels caught, notwithstanding the fact that poaching has become a regular line of trade, in the neighbourhood of the city of Seattle, and the ports of Puget Sound, in British Columbia waters. About two years ago a vessel called the ' Levi Woodbury,' was seized and condemned, and I am advised on pretty good authority that she was afterwards released by the late government on payment of a fine of $50, because the vessel was reported to be owned by a friend of the then administration. In addition to the ' Kestrel ' there are one or two smau boats engaged for the ostensible purpose of preventing poaching, and there have been from time to time a couple of whaling boats chartered in addition to a boat called the 'William Joliffe,' but all of these are absolutely unfit for the purpose they are intended for. Since 1907, the year it may be remembered before the general election, there has been an appropriation annually in the estimates for the building of a fishery protection cruiser, but no fishery protection cruiser has ever materialized. The late administration seemed to be somewhat of the opinion that that item in the estimates was going to prevent our American friends from taking the fish, but curiously enough it has not had that effect. Now, Mr, Speaker, I want to say to this House that these fisheries are worth protecting. Professor Prince has made a report on the Pacific coast fisheries, in which he says they are probably the finest fisheries belonging to any one country anywhere in the world. He also says that they

are unique in regard to the fact that they are wholly within protected waters, and that they can be operated with more safety and less loss of life than is experienced in connection with the fisheries on the Atlantic coast. That shows, Sir, that these fisheries are an asset which it is well worth our while protecting. I venture to say that the cost of properly protecting these fisheries will be more than amply repaid by the saving to the country in the fish which would otherwise be poached. I am glad to see that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has provided in the estimates for this year for the building of two or more cruisers. I would like to impress on him the absolute necessity there is for getting these cruisers into commission as soon as possible. I would also suggest to him that these cruisers be built in the province of British Columbia, if that can be done. I do not see any reason why they should not be built in that province. We find that the Canadian Pacific railway, and other large concerns are building vessels in British Columbia, and there can be no reason why the Dominion government should not also do so. It may be said that it would cost a little more to build a vessel on the Pacific coast than in this part of Canada. I would point out that the late administration did not find that an objection, for they were committed to the principle of encouraging shipbuilding in Canada even though they had to pay more than if the ships were built in the old country. In connection with their naval policy, when they called for tenders for the ships it was provided that they should be built in Canada, although they would probably cost thirty per cent more than if built in England. If it is a good thing for Canada that we should pay this increased cost for the benefit of having ships built on the Atlantic coast, it would be equally good for the country to have these ships built on the Pacific coast, so as to establish the industry there, even though they should cost fifty per cent more. I trust the minister will at a very early date give out the contracts for these fishery protection cruisers, and that when he does so he will endeavour to have them built in British Columbia.
Mr. H, H. STEVENS (Vancouver). Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Comox-Atlin (Mr. Clements), for bringing this question before the House. It is a very important and burning question on the Pacific coast. We have felt very keenly the inattention and negligence of the former administration in reeard to our deep-sea fisheries, and wish to take advantage of this opportunity to place ourselves on record, as supporters of the government, in favour of adequate protection for those fisheries. The natural physical features of the Pacific coast lend themselves to the abuse of this great industry, particularly to poaching. At the present time poaching is carried on to such an extent that we might almost as well have our fisheries under the control of our American friends in Puget Sound. Between two and three hundred American boats leave Puget Sound constantly to fish in our waters, whereas our own fishermen have only six or seven. This could not be, but for the fact that, by our policy, we permit American fishermen to receive shelter, to purchase bait, to clean their fish, and to do other things necessary to the life of the industry. Were we to enforce the law as it should be enforced, very few of these boats could fish in our waters, because they would be too far from their ports to carry on the business successfully. As you know, it is necessary for the fishing boats, especially those engaged in the halibut industry, to go into harbour to put their fish in shape, owing to the stormy nature of the sea. This great fishing industry of the Pacific coast belongs peculiarly to the Canadian pieople, and I believe our laws should be enforced in such a way as to protect the interests of our own people in that industry. Reference has already been made to. the kind of protection we have at present. We have two old boats, the ' Quadra ' and the ' Kestrel/ which are the laughing stock of the fishing people of the Pacific coast. They never were adequate, they never had any speed, they have never been able to catch up to the average fishing boat on the coast. Consequently, as years went by, the American fishermen came to ignore entirely the presence of these fishery cruisers, or protectors, as they are falsely called. What we require on the Pacific coast is at least three fairly large fishery cruisers of a type similar to that of the American fishing boats, of 100 tons burden, and of a speed of at least 15 knots an hour. If we had boats of that type it would not be long before the poachers would find their business to be so unprofitable that they would leave our fisheries alone. We should also have stationed at all the harbours along the coast, where these American boats are wont to come, a number of officials who could advise the cruisers what boats had been illegally in any of these harbours. It would cost very little to have these officials, and I recommend it to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. There are men living at these harbours who have other means of support, and who would be willing, for $12 or $15 a month, to watch these American poachers, and give information concerning them. This fishery protection service should be placed under the control of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the fishery superintendent. I understand that at the present time it is under

coast, the history of the industry is reversed, for the production rose from 6,877,640 pounds in 1899, to 21,706,000 pounds in 1909, over [DOT]welve times the total Atlantic catch. The bulk of the halibut fishing is done by vessels outfitted at Seattle and Tacoma, in the State of Washington, but a great deal of their fishing is done in Canadian water, notably in Hecate strait.
It is a disputed point between the Canadian and Amerioan authorities whether Hecate strait is neutral or Canadian water. We claim it is Canadian water. But the Dominion government some years ago granted a privilege to the New England Fish Company, an American corporation, which practically admits that Hecate strait is neutral or open water. They granted to this company the privilege of shipping its fish through Canadian ports in bond to the eastern markets. The reason the New England Fish Company wanted that privilege was, that if they could run into Vancouver they were fifteen hours nearer the American market than at Seattle. This is a great advantage. It will be realized at once that in the transportation of fresh fish this is an advantage that should be reserved to the Canadian people to whom it by right belongs. It has been claimed by supporters of the late government that this concession was distinctly an advantage to Vancouver. I contend it is not because this fishing company have been able to control the market to such an extent that the Canadian fishermen have not been able to go into the fishing business in Vancouver. I will explain how this is brought about. When the New England Fish Company bring fish into Vancouver the choice fish is shipped to the American markets, but in fishing for heavy fish, like halibut, there is always some soft or bruised fish which it is impossible to ship to the eastern market, these fish are dumped on the local market. Hon. members will say that, according to the regulations, they are not permitted to sell in Vancouver or on the local market. To overcome that they place these inferior fish in cars, and bill them out to Bellingham. But in many cases the cars would not leave Vancouver. The freight and duty would be paid and then they would be sold in the market at Vancouver as A-l fish. In some cases, these fish are actually sent out of the country, but they are shipped back in the same oars. This practice has gone on for many years. If this privilege had not been granted to the New England Fish Company, Canadian companies would, have sprung up who could have shipped fish through as the New England Fish Company does to the markets on the Atlantic coast. It is true they would have had to pay a duty of a cent a pound on going into the American mar-Mr. STEVENS.
kets, but my contention is that the natural advantage we enjoy on the Pacific coast, if the laws were enforced, would more than offset the one cent a pound duty. We have a great natural advantage in having our harbours 15 hours nearer the market, and this more than offsets the handicap of a one-eent per pound duty. So I say that the regulation or privilege that was extended to the New England Fish Company is inimical to the best interests of the Canadian fishermen on the Pacific coasts, and I trust that the Minister of Marine and the present government will see their way clear to cancel that permit and to secure a more thorough enforcement of the laws on the Pacific coast.
I wish to say a few words on the whaling industry of the Pacific coast. This is also a most profitable industry. I am quite aware that whaling must be carried on on the high seas, but if whales can be caught contiguous to a whaling station, it stands to reason, they can be handled more profitably than if they had to be carried several hundreds or thousands of miles. On the Pacific coast we have had considerable returns from the whaling inindustry. I have here in this report of the British Columbia government, a recommendation to which I would call the attention of the Dominion government.
Whalers, operating in the sea of Japan and Behring sea, do a considerable trade in whale meat, which is extensively used for food in Japan. Instead of converting the ' beef ' into fertilizer it is salted and in this form commands a better price. The importation of whale meat into Japan amounts to over two million pounds annually, representing a value of over $50,000. Pickled whales* tails are estimated a delicacy in Japan, and large quantities are shipped from this coast.
About two-thirds of the whales captured are cow-whales, either with suckling calves, or with young unborn, the females being broader across the body and slower in movement, as well as yielding more oil, are more easily captured than the males.
This and the fact that whales are hunted at all seasons, should induce the authorities to adopt reasonable restrictive measures for the preservation of these valuable creatures. The indiscriminate slaughter of whales in the North sea, the Atlantic, and Gulf of St. Lawrence, has practically destroyed the industry in those waters, and without protection the same thing is likely to occur on this coast.
I am informed by men who live on the coast that the practice prevails of capturing the young calf whale, harpooning and anchoring it at the shore, and waiting till the mother whale comes up, seeking its release, when both are slaughtered together. I say that is a practice absolutely inhuman and should not be tolerated in a civilized country. If this whaling industry is going

to last for any time it must be conserved. I am told that the profits from whaling amounts to from twenty to forty per cent. Now it can easily be seen that in consequence of such methods the whaling industry in a few years will be totally extinct. I trust the present government will take these things into consideration, and if it be necessary to do so, take the question up with other nations who are interested, and see that the whaling industry on the Northern Pacific coast is adequately protected, and that such inhuman and unreasonable methods of fishing, as I have described, should be put a stop to. From every standpoint the fishing industry is one that the government should endeavour to conserve, both from the standpoint of revenue, and the standpoint of building up a population on the Pacific coast which will constitute a bulwark for the Dominion of Canada. For the prairie provinces it is essential that they should have a port on the Pacific coast, if their development is going to be what they hope it will be. If the Pacific coast is going to be of any use to Canada then it must be under the direct control and dominance of our own countrymen, people of our own race and sentiment, of our own religion, morals and national ideas. I do not think that we should any longer permit the present condition to obtain, and continue to issue licenses to Japanese and Chinese, thereby fostering a policy which has already proved most suicidal to the fisheries. It is necessary for our future welfare that we build up on the Pacific coast a population which will be a credit to Canada, and a bulwark to this Dominion; and permit me to say in conclusion, that I think the time is not far distant when the Dominion and the empire will need a bulwark on the Pacific coast.


Mr. F. H. SHEPHERD (Nanaimo).: 1 have no hesitation in endorsing every word that has been uttered by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), and the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Barnard). They laid great stress upon the fact of the inadequate patrol of the fisheries on the Pacific coast. I am credibly informed that when the present patrol is out of sight, on the south and west coasts of Vancouver island, which is partly in my constituency, no less than from 200 to 300 vessels of various descriptions are waiting to enter the protected zone and to poach in our Canadian fisheries. I am pleased to hear that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has consented to a very substantial appropriation for the establishment of an efficient patrol service for the protection of our fisheries. I might also acid that it would serve a veiy good purpose on the west coast of Vancouver Island, which is known probably as the most disastrous locality to the mer-79


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
cantile marine on the Pacific coast, and which has become known as the graveyard of the mercantile business-I say that an efficient patrol service might well be used as an aid to the present life-saving service. My friends and colleagues from British Columbia have pretty well covered the ground, but there is one thing I would like to draw attention of hon. members to. It is not the salmon fisheries or the larger fisheries in which I am particularly interested, but it is the herring fishery. The town of Nanaimo my heme town is the home of the herring industry, and I regret to say that this industry is entirely in the hands of Japanese fishermen. I want also, to criticise the method of issuing licenses which has been heretofore in vogue for herring fisheries, and which has been much abused. 1 am credibly informed, although this is a hard matter to prove, that licenses given to wfiite people have been farmed out to Japanese fishermen for a consideration, ranging all the way from $750 to $1,500. As I say, this is difficult to prove, but it is generally believed to be a fact. It is an easy matter for the white man who has got a license to establish, at least ostensibly a half interest or otherwise with Japanese fishermen. After the 21st of September last when I was elected to represent the constituency of Nanaimo, I was requested to thoroughly investigate the question of issuing licenses for the herring fisheries. I did so in conjunction with the local inspector, and we made a thorough investigation into the method of issuing licenses. The result of that investigation was to convince me that the process at present in vogue has resulted in a great number of these licenses being transferred from white ifien to Japanese in ar: illicit manner, and consequently I recommended that these licenses should be refused to other than bona fide operators which has accordingly been done. I hope the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who has this matter in hand will carefully look into the matter and see that this scandal with regard to the issuing of fishery licenses is removed. I am of the opinion which has been expressed by the hon. member for Comox-Atlin (Mr. Clements), that these fishery licenses should be given to the actual fishermen themselves and only to them. Fish is the people's food and should be as free as the air. At present the licenses fall into the hands of corporations and combinations of capitalists, so that the poor fishermen stand but a slim chance of gaining a livelihood out of the fishing industry. I believe it is contrary to the British fishery-law to refuse a license to any applicant offering to pay the :fee. I will quote a few words from 'the British Fishery Act of 1865, which I do not think has been since amended in. any . way so as to alter the principle laid down.

[Stage Direction]
All persons demanding to purchase licenses, and tendering to any person appointed bv the hoard to distribute the same the amount of license duty to be paid under the provisions of this Act, shall he entitled to receive the same without any question or objection whatsoever.
Now, is there any reason why such a permit or license should be withheld from our fishermen on the Pacific coast, ot anywhere else? Reverting to the question of the patrol, some of my colleagues from British Columbia have dwelt more particularly upon the need of better prevention against poaching in our waters. But we have another patrol, which is the inside patrol, whose duty it is to deal with the offenders against the stipulations of the Fishery Act. In my town of Nanaimo there is stationed the patrol ' Alcedo,' which has a speed of about 8 knots an hour, while every Japanese fishing launch in that harbour has a greater speed, and every one of those launches is fitted up with powerful searchlights. One of these launches always remains constantly in sight of the 'A'lcedo/ and when the 'Alcedo ' gets up steam for the purpose of going out to patrol the fisheries, by a system of telegraphy and signals the news is flashed to every other launch in the vicinity. It follows, consequently, that as the government patrol is a slow boat, comparatively, she is unable to overtake the illicit poaching vessels. I believe that the government patrol vessels should be obliged to carry a searchlight, but in point of fact she has none; and when we referred the matter to the proper authorities we were simply told that a searchlight was not necessary. I think that not only is a searchlight necessary, but that the patrol, both inside and outside, should be of such speed that no other fishing vessel should be allowed to get away, and evade the law in this manner. With regard to persons to whom the licenses should issue, I am of opinion that every man who pulls an oar should be granted a license, and Should have an opportunity of deposing of his fish in the best market and at the best obtainable price. Now the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) put a question to the hon. member from Comox-Atlin, and while I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, if it is permissible for one member to answer a question put to another member, I would assure the hon. member from Guysborough that as far as I am concerned I would have no hesitation whatever in stating that I certainly would eliminate the Orientals from the fishing industry. Now the question of naturalizing the Japanese into British subjects and giving them the rights of citizenship will doubtless present some difficulties, if we are going to eliminate them from the fishing industry. However, I go so far as to say that not only in the fishing industry, Mr. SHEPHERD
but in every other industry of British Columbia where the Japanese or other Orientals enter into competition with our own workers, and notwithstanding anything in international law or international agreement, it is manifestly unfair to allow these Orientals to enter into competition with our white men.
Now, Mr. Speaker, permit me to say a word or two with regard to the Oriental question.
There is no quid pro quo. Our own people cannot engage in the fisheries or enter into any other industry in Japan or India. Therefore, the advantage is clearly on the side of the Asiatic and the present system is manifestly unfair to our own workers. I sincerely trust that the members of this House, will, without regard to party politics, endeavour to frame laws for this country such as will eventually tend to a white Canada. I do not know that I have anything further to say. The Oriental question will probably come up before this House at an early date and I shall then have more to say on the subject, but in the meantime I am thoroughly in accord with the sentiments which have been expressed here this afternoon. I trust that hon. members on both sides of this House will give us their support in our endeavour to eliminate some of the disadvantages under which our people are labouring on the Pacific coast.
Mr. ALFRED THOMPSON (Yukon).: Mr. Speaker, this is a question in which I am very much interested. I represent a territory adjoining the riding which is represented by my hon. friend from Comox-Atlin (Mr. Clements), and we derive our fish from the waters that lave the shores of northern British Columbia. I am informed by men who are competent to give an opinion that there are to-day in Hecate straits the most valuable halibut fisheries not only in Canada, but in the world, and if that is so-and I believe it is so-we have there a perennial asset which, it strikes me, it would be well for us as Canadians to conserve. The evidence which has been presented here this afternoon by gentlemen who represent constituencies in British Columbia is to the effect that American fishermen are invading our northern waters and taking the fish which are rightfully ours. Up to the present time we have not protected the fisheries in British Columbia. The fisheries of our country form an asset which, I think, has never been properly valued and the fisheries of the Pacific coast have not been properly investigated or protected. That is shown by the fact that the size of the halibut has been reduced from 100 pounds to 20 pounds as was mentioned by one hon. gentleman who spoke this afternoon. That is a strik-

ing fact. If, in the few years which have elapsed since the fisheries in British Columbia began to be exploited, the size of the halibut has decreased from 100 pounds, it is a striking illustration of how these fisheries are being depleted. We are building the Transcontinental railway which has its Pacific terminals at Prince Rupert and nearly opposite are the valuable fishing grounds of Hecate straits. There are today fish companies who are putting in large investments of capital to care for the fish which shall eventually be taken in Hecate straits and transported to western Canada. We have west of here the prairie provinces which are being populated at a very rapid rate. Those provinces have practically no fisheries of their own except those of their lakes and rivers. The result is that in a very few years we are going to have a vast fish market in Canada, and in those prairie provinces particularly, and we have beyond the range of mountains on the Pacific coast the greatest halibut fisheries to be found anywhere. It is a matter that calls for the consideration of this parliament and the consideration of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) in order to see that these valuable fisheries are conserved. What about the fisheries that surround the coasts of the British Isles? These fisheries have existed since the time the Romans invaded Britain and they are still one of the greatest assets of the British Isles because there they pay particular attention to the conservation of that great national asset. Some one mentioned here this afternoon the value of training on our maritime province coasts men who can man a merchant marine. There is no doubt in my mind that the time is not far distant when we shall have again a great merchant marine not only in the maritime provinces, as we had in years gone by, but also on the Pacific coast as well. It is an important factor in the development of the country, particularly a country like ours which has a line of sea-coast on the Atlantic as well as the Pacific, that we should have men who are capable of manning such a merchant marine as I think we may reasonably hope to have in a few years. The merchant marine upon the Pacific coast has not, up to the present time, been as important a factor as we would like to have had it, but time will change that. I am glad to know that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has placed a sum in the estimates sufficient to cover the purchase of boats to protect the great fisheries like those of Hecate straits and other parts of the British Columbia coast and which represent such a great national asset.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
IJouse resumed at eight o'clock.


John Douglas Hazen: The House must have listened with pleasure and profit to the discussion we have had in regard to fishery matters in the province of British Columbia, and I believe the hon. member for Comox-Atlin (Mr. Clements) and the other gentlemen from British Columbia who have spoken in reference to this question, are entitled to the thanks of the House for the very great amount of information they have given us concerning these British Columbia fisheries. I would point out to my hon. friend from Comox-Atlin (Mr. Clements), that the motion as made would call for all letters written by Captain Newcombe upon the subject of the movements of the ship, and crew, and for a'll formal letters, and such a motion would cover a vast amount of correspondence. I presume that my hon. friend does not want all the papers that would be included in the scope of such a motion, and I would suggest that he let me know just what the papers are that he desires to have brought before the House, in order that there may be a time limit fixed, and then there would be no difficulty whatever in giving to my hon. friend at an early date the information he desires. I may say that the information the department has in its possession with regard to the fishery protection service in British Columbia waters is entirely in agreement with the views expressed by the hon. member for Comox-Atlin (Mr. Clements) and other hon. gentlemen from British Columbia. There is no doubt at all that the fisheries of British Columbia are a very great national .asset. The fishing industry is a growing industry on the Pacific coast, and the fisheries of that province are increasing not only along the shores' of the mainland and the adjoining islands, but also on both shores of the Queen Charlotte Islands, and on the west coast of the Island of Vancouver. There is no doubt whatever but that if these fisheries are carefully preserved and wise laws enacted to that end, and these laws fairly enforced, that the fisheries of British Columbia will be an increasing source of wealth to the country for very many years to come. From biblical times down to the present, fish has largely been the food of the people whose purses are not so large or so long as those of the wealthy classes. I think the universal opinion of this House would be that moneys expended for the purpose of protecting fisheries, and increasing them as a national asset by stocking with fish streams, and lakes and rivers that have been depleted, by unwise conduct in the past, would be well spent in the interests of the country. I am sure this House would not begrudge making appropriations of a

generous character for that work. There is no doubt whatever that the money so expended, if wisely spent, will be returned to the people of Canada many times oyer in the increased wealth of their fisheries. I have said that the information which the department has at its disposal with regard to the protection of the fisheries in British Columbia agrees very largely indeed with the views which hon. gentlemen have expressed in this House this afternoon. The belief of the department is that the protection afforded to our fisheries, by the fishery protection service, within the three mile limit has been inadequate and inefficient. I may say in this connection that I do not think that the statement made to-day by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Shepherd) as to the tremendous amount of poaching that goes on within the three mile limit in the waters contiguous to British Columbia, is at all exaggerated or overdrawn. It might seem at first thought, that the statement of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Shepherd), that sometimes several hundred vessels come within the three mile limit for the purpose of poaching on the wealth that belongs to the Dominion of Canada, was to some extent overdrawn. But the information received from official reports, and from the officers of the department, as well as from the members who represent British Columbia constituencies, and others who are interested in the fisheries there, would lead me to the conclusion that these statements have not been exaggerated in the least. It is my belief that up to the present time there has not been adequate protection to preserve these fisheries from the encroachments of those who have no right to fish in our waters within the three mile limit. It is my belief, also, that there has not been a sufficient patrol to enforce our laws within that three mile limit. Bearing that in mind, I would ask my hon. friends to look at the estimates submitted to the House for the present year and there they will see that provision is made for the better protection of the British Columbia fisheries. There is a vote taken in these estimates for two more vessels to he added to the protection fleet and also provision is be ing made for another vessel for the purpose of patrolling the waters. Criticism has been made to-day by one hon. gentleman on the fact that the Fishery Protection Service is at present under the control of the Naval Service Department, and it was said that it would be more effective if it were placed under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I have noticed a similar contention set up in a resolution which has been sent to me from a meeting of the Fishermens' Association of the county of Charlotte, New Brunswick, a county which has most extensive Mr. HAZEN.
fisheries, in which are situated the islands of Grand Manan, Campobello, Deer Island and others, the population of which chiefly derive their living from the seas, Well, I am not very much impressed with the force of that argument. It must he remembered that the Naval Service Department is as much under the control of the Minister of the Marine and Fisheries De-parment as is the Marine and Fisheries branch itself, and I do not see how the service would be any better enforced under the one branch than under the other.
Every day the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is in consultation with the Deputy-Head of the Naval Service, and there is no reason in the world why the fishery protection service should not be just as well administered where it now is, as if it were transferred to the Marine and Fisheries branch. Probably, one reason which caused the late government to place the fishery protection under the Department of Naval Affairs, is, that in a certain sense the fishery protection fleet is a militant fleet. It exists for the purpose of keeping poachers, chiefly our American friends, from coming into the waters of Canada, and therefore it would seem fitting that it should be under the naval service department. I may say that the Deputy Minister of the Naval Service is a gentleman who was previously deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and consequently he is thoroughly conversant with ail matters affecting fishery protection, and I believe he is rendering excellent service in administering the affairs of the department subject to the control of the minister who is responsible to this House. In the estimates of this year there is an appropriation of $275,000 for additional vessels for the fishery protection fleet of British Columbia. It is hoped that with this money we will be able to purchase a vessel that will be able to go into commission at a very early date so as to be effective this year. Heretofore the protection cruisers employed in the waters of British Columbia have not been suited for the purpose. They were too slow, they were not able to move about quickly from one place to another in order to drive off the American poachers who, tempted by the wealth of our fisheries, paid no regard to our laws. It is to be hoped that with this vote we will be able to get two effective vessels to protect our fisheries and to drive off those who come within our waters to poach on the heritage of Canadians in those fisher-ics.
The service in the past has been performed by the Canadian government steamer the 'Kestrel', with the assistance of sonm smaller vessels. The steamer ' Kestrel " never will be fitted for the service, has been dismantled, and will shortly be sold. 1 Negotiations are now proceeding for the
IMS!)

purchase of a suitable vessel, and in addition it is proposed to ask for tenders at a very early date, as soon as the necessary funds are placed at our disposal by parliament, for the construction of a vessel which in point of size, speed equipment and everything else, will be well suited for the protection of our fisheries on the Pacific coast. One of the hon. gentlemen who addressed the House this afternoon expressed the hope that that vessel would be built in British Columbia. I sincerely hope that will be the case. It will largely depend on the tenders we receive from British Columbia. The tenders are open to all; hut I agree with my hon. friend that it is well for us to have work of this kind performed by Canadian mechanics, so that the money will be spent among our people, provided the percentage of cost above the cost on the other side of the Atlantic is not too great to justify us in taking that course. That will have to be determined when the tenders are received.
I hope that the result of those tenders will be that we can fairlj and properly, having regard to the interests of Canada, have the vessel built in British Columbia, where its work will be, and where I believe people should be able to construct vessels on as favourable terms and conditions as in any other part of Canada. In the meantime, before that other vessel is constructed, something will have to be done for the protection of the fisheries, and an item of $50,000 will be found in the estimates submitted to the House by the Naval Department this year, for vessels to patrol the Pacific coast. It is intended to charter two whaling steamers to do the patrol work on the Pacific coast. These vessels it is calculated can be got at $100 a day, pending the construction of new vessels for the service. I trust that when these vessels are obtained and in Icommission, there will be very much less complaint about vessels from the United States and other countries coming and poaching in our waters and taking the fish which belong to the Canadian people. In addition to that, there is in the estimates of the Fisheries Department this year an item of $75,000 for the purpose of providing the cost of building a fisheries patrol steamer for British Columbia. The difference between the fisheries protection vessels which are under the control of the Naval Department and the fisheries patrol vessels is probably well known to hon. members. The primary object and purpose of the fisheries protection steamers is to protect our waters against smugglers. The object of the fisheries patrol steamers is to enforce the laws and regulations of the department with regard to our fisheries in those waters. In addition to the patrol work, it is absolutely necessary that the inspectors should have a boat which can go along the coast
at a fair rate of speed and practically in all weathers, as there are no railways along the shore and no means of communication except what is afforded by vessels of this sort. The fisheries of the province are rapidly extending, not only along the main shore and the islands contiguous thereto, but as I said before both sides of the Queen Charlotte Islands and on the west ccast of Vancouver Island. It is necessary to protect this great wealth, which will be much greater in the future, and therefore these vessels should be provided. When these plans are carried out, I think we shall have an effective protective service, and if it is not perfectly effective, I shall not hesitate to ask parliament for further provision to enable us adequately to protect the fisheries in the province of British Columbia.
My hon. friends from British Columbia this afternoon dealt with some other matters outside of the four corners of the resolution submitted to the House by my hon. friend from Comox-Atlin. There was a very general interesting discussion with regard to the fishery conditions that exist in British Columbia. While I do not want to draw general conclusions from insufficient data, and while my knowledge and experience of the department are as yet of such a character that I cannot speak with the authority that I would like, I believe there is reason for the very strong criticism indulged in by my hon. friends from British Columbia with regard to the fishery laws and regulations generally in that province. There was some discussion with regard to the issue of licenses. These licenses are issued by the department, and at $25 each. The British Columbian government exacts a license fee of a similar amount; and, according to the records of the department and the information I have obtained from the officials, it has been the habit in the past to grant these licenses to many people who are not fishermen and who are not connected with the fisheries on the Pacific coast. In some cases they have been granted to men engaged in mercantile life, sometimes to clerks in mercantile! establishments. These men have obtained the licenses, not with the intention of embarking in fishing enterprises themselves, but for the purpose of selling them to those who did. In some cases licenses obtained from the government in this way for $25 have been sold for as high as $1,500. This year up to the present time no licenses have been issued. This is a matter which is engaging the attention of the department. The fishery officeis or the department in British Columbia have been instructed not to issue licenses to the persons who obtains them last year, and who did not bma fide engage in the fishing indus-

try. The whole question of these licenses is under consideration. I have had audiences cn the subject with gentlemen from British Columbia, I have consulted the British Columbia government, and I have summoned here the inspector of British Columbia, so that there will be a full discussion of the whole matter with the view, if possible, of remedying the conditions which have been the subject of so much complaint for years. It seems to me indefensible that persons should be able to obtain a license for $25, and sell it again for a large sum of money without rendering any service therefor. Iff these licenses are worth these large sums of money, it is fair to consider whether we should not so arrange the issue of them that these large sums should come into the coffers of the Dominion, and not go into the pockets of private individuals who have rendered no value for them.
In New Brunswick, where we have valuable inland fisheries-salmon and trout fisheries suitable for angling-the practice is to lease them for periods of ten years, the lease being put up to auction, and granted to the highest bidders. Whether that be practicable in connection with the British Columbia fisheries, I am not prepared to say; but it is worth considering whether the country . could not derive greater benefit from those extensive salmon, herring and other fisheries than by granting licenses at nominal prices to persons who simply get those licenses for the purpose of selling them out to others. There is one condition in connection with those British Columbia fisheries, which caused me a great deal of surprise and made me doubt whether hon. gentlemen opposite c'ou'ld have been aware of its existence. From the little study I have been able to give the subject, it seems to me that the fisheries of British Columbia have been administered in the interest of the can-ners and their establishments rather than that of the fishermen. While the canners have been protected by regulations in every possible way, the fishermen have been 'left to their own resources. In fact they have been absolutely hampered in their business. Every cannery has a certain number of licenses issued in connection with it. There is what is called a boat rating for every *cannery. One cannery, for instance, is allowed 200 fishing boats, another 100, and so on, according to the size of the establishment, and outside of those licenses the fishermen are not allowed to pursue their calling. The canneries form practically a close corporation, and the regulations have been framed in the past for the protection of the canners and not at all in the interests of the fishermen. The other day there was brought to my attention a most extraordinary regulation. Under it the fishermen were absolutely prohibited from send-Mr. HAZEN.
ing their fresh fish out of the country. They had to have their fish canned or smoked or they could not sell them outside the province. The effect of that regulation was this. A boat might catch 300 or 400 salmon, and on bringing its catch to the cannery would find a notice posted up to the effect that on that day the cannery would not take more than 100. One would think that the fisherman then could take his fish either, to the American or some other market, No, under the regulation he was absolutely prohibited from doing so, so that he had to dump his extra supply-in some cases 200 or 300 salmon-back into the sea. Thus the catch was entirely lost to him, and no one else got any advantage from it. Under the law he had no right to throw his dead salmon back into the sea, but that was the easiest way of- getting rid of them. Nor was he allowed to use them on land for the purpose of fertilizing. Were the law strictly enforced, all he could do would be to dig .a hole in the ground and there bury his fish. Acting on the representations of representatives from British Columbia, endorsed by the officials of my department, on Saturday last I had that regulation repealed so that now the fishermen can send their fresh fish to other markets than to the canneries. The regulation we have repealed was probably passed years ago, before the fisheries were properly understood and when probably some wealthy men had sufficient influence to have this regulation made in their own interest. It was then continued in force from year to year until it became a serious scandal, and a great subject of grievance to the fishermen.
It is very desirable that the question of our fisheries should be fully discussed in this House. It is very desirable from the standpoint of the general public and also from that of the minister who is the responsible head of the department concerned, and also because such discussion cannot fail to attract attention to the fisheries of British Columbia and other parts of our country.
With reference to the whale fisheries, to which one hon. member from British Columbia has referred, that is a question which can only be dealt with by international arrangement. Whales are caught outside of the three mile limit-outside of waters which are within the territorial jurisdiction of Canada-and, therefore, any regulation for the preservation of those fisheries will have to be a matter of arrangement between the United States and Canada. In a report submitted a short time ago by Captain Bernier of the 'Arctic', he drew attention to the fact that these fish in the northern waters were becoming exterminated and would soon become a thing of the past if regulations were not made to prohibit the fishing and the selling of them for a number of years. I talked the mat-

ter over with the officials of my department and instructed them to take proper steps for the purpose of endeavouring to have an international arrangement come to with the United States and thus prevent valuable fisheries from becoming entirely destroyed.
I assure the House that the desire of the Marine and Fisheries Department is to afford as adequate protection as possible to the very valuable fisheries we possess in British Columbia, so that that great source of supply may not only be continued for years to come, but that the catch may be increased under such wise regulations as may commend themselves, to our approval. The papers called for will be laid on the table, and I shall be happy at any time to discuss this interesting question with any of the representatives from British Columbia.


John Howard Sinclair: I have listened this afternoon with great interest to the discussion regarding the fisheries on our Pacific coast. But two questions were raised by hon. members from British Columbia without drawing any comment from the hon. minister. Yet these questions have been discussed in thart province for a number of years, and I understood were issues there in the recent election. The first one is the abolition of Oriental labour in connection with the prosecution of fisheries on the Pacific coast. That question was raised by a number of hon. gentlemen this afternoon, and the (minister will remember that the prohibition of Oriental labour was advocated by them very strongly. The second question is the abolition of the (bonding privilege which enables American fishing vessels to catch fish on the Pacific coast and enables the Canadian Pacific railway to carry that catch free of duty to the Boston market. The abolition of that bonding privilege also was advocated by supporters of this government during the recent election in the Pacific province and was strongly urged this afternoon. But I have not heard the hon. minister say what the policy of the government is on these two important questions.


John Douglas Hazen: I did not refer to what was said regarding the fishing by Japanese in the waters of British Columbia as I did not wish to do so until I had studied the question further, and felt I could speak on it with more authority than at present. The question is in a large measure an entirely new one to me. It is very important and far reaching, involving not only domestic and local conritions, but to some extent our international relations as well, and until I have had more time to study it, I would not feel warranted in giving expression to any decided opinion.
With reference to the bonding privilege, that is worthy of most careful consideration. It is a question that will be considered by the government in the very near future.	.
Everything relating to that very important asset, our fisheries on the Pacific coast, will have the most careful study at the hands of the goverhment. The matter is one outside of party politics altogether, but none the less of great importance to the province of British Columbia and the other provinces as well, and I can assure the House that it will have at my hands the most serious consideration. '


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY BRANCH LINES ESTMERE TO BADDECK.
Mr. McKENZIE moved:: For a copy of all papers, correspondence and orders in conncil, relating to or in any way connected with the surveying and calling for tenders for the construction of the line of railway from Estmere to Baddeck, in the county of Victoria.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, the question of
the extension of branch lines of the Intercolonial Railway in Nova Scotia, has been brought before this House from time to time during the last 30 years. The result of the agitation carried on by members on both sides of politics has been an extension of only 90 miles of railway in Cape Breton. I need not point out that it is impossible to serve that country which is 125 or 150 miles long by from 80 to 90 miles wide with a straight single line of railway. It may be that the Minister of Railways and other members of the government do not understand that the Island of Cape Breton is practically two islands. It is cut in two by that magnificent body of salt water the Bras D'Or lakes, from the mouth of the Big Bras D'or to the St. Peter canal, at which point the two sections of the island are connected by a narrow isthmus of half a mile which is cut through by the St. Peter's canal. You have two large areas of land, one to the north and one to the south of the canal and a large salt water lake, in some places 25 miles wide, dividing them. The immense task has been attempted of serving these two bodies _ of land by one railway. The best possible course was adopted when that line of railway was run down through the centre crossing at the Grand Narrows, which is_ approached by a very substantial steel bridge, thus avoiding a ferry at that point. But we can never have a satisfactory or suitable service until there is a railway running through the northern island, and also through the southern end. We are glad to know that a desirable route on the southern side of St. Peter's has been surveyed, and if the road is extended as we

hope it will be extended, down through Locih Lomond toy Mira Valley and through to Lewisburg, that magnificent section of country will be served. Until that is done, that section will not get a proper service. We hear a great deal from hon. gentlemen from British Columbia, who put before this House the necessity and the great demand of their great province.
When I witness the zeal and determination with which those gentlemen present to this House the interests of their great province, I feel that we from the eastern part of Canada are far too timid, far too easily put off, and that we do not put the interest of the people of that part of the country before the House with that force of determination which are characteristic of our friends from the west, and from the province of British Columbia. We are proud to hear of the wealth of the fisheries in British Columbia. I come from the province of Nova Scotia, where we have a wealth of fisheries just as great, perhaps not as great in salmon, but a greater variety and better quality than they have even in British Columbia; and if it is necessary that they should have proper facilities to develop their fisheries, it is equally necessary that rye should have them in the province of Nova Scotia. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister say a few days ago that his government intended giving facilities to the fisheries of Nova Scotia such as they never had before. Let me tell the Prime Minister that it is impossible for him to give us the proper means to develop the fisheries in Nova Scotia until he puts the great fishing points in touch with railway communication.^ It is unnecessary for me to tell the Prime Minister and the government that every year and every day the fresh fish of the Dominion are becoming more important, and any part of Canada that cannot compete in that great industry with regard to fresh fish is not in the race. It is the opinion of the best men in Nova Scotia engaged in the fishery that we cannot compete in the market until we are, from Yarmouth to Scattaree, put in touch with railway lines, and until the Department of Railways puts upon the Intercolonial and its branches refrigerator cars capable of catering to this trade. While we are dependent for the carrying of our fresh fish on freight trains and insufficiently equipped freight cars we are not in the race with other parts of the country and other parts of the continent who are looking after this trade. Now it is impossible for the government to develop this fish business until we have facilities with which to develop it. We have all along the coast of Nova Scotia from Yarmouth to Scattaree, and from Scattarep to Cane North, and all around
Mr. MoKENZIE.	; . I
the gulf shore back to Cumberland again, the finest fisheries in the world. Let the Prime Minister and the government consider that all the railway facilities we have east of Truro is the Intercolonial, a straight line running straight through the country, and not touching the seacoast at any point except at the Strait of Canso; and it was shown the other day that at the Strait of Canso great advantage has been taken of the railway, that the fishing business has been profitable to the Intercolonial as well as to the people engaged in that great industry. I must point out to the government that at the Strait of Canso, where this traffic in fish has been carried on, the facilities which I have pointed out have not been given, that we require better equipped cars and express trains.
But coming down more particularly to the county of Victoria, I have already pointed out to this House that there are no finer fishing grounds in any other port of Canada than along the eastern and northern part of the island of Cape Breton. But at this time of the year when the ice comes in, and they cannot send their fish away by water they are completely shut out from the world. They are shut out from the opportunity of getting their fish out at the best season of the market, or when the market is at its best. They are unable to obtain from the outside world the necessities of life at a time when they could buy at the best advantage. The only thing that will relieve the situation is the extension of this line of railway that I am now advocating .to Baddeck, and then the opportunity will present itself to extend it north along the harbours of St. Ann, Ingonish, and Neil's Harbour, clean to the Bay of St. Lawrence to Meat Cove, skirting along the most magnificent fishing grounds in Canada, and giving the people of this country an opportunity of competing in the markets of the world with their codfish, their salmon, their haddock, their herring, and a hundred and one kinds of magnificent edible fish caught in these waters. That has been the situation for the'last 150 years. And when, from time to time, ever since there was a parliament in Canada, the members from that part of the country coming here have always been advocating the expenditure of this pittance of money necessary for extending the railway, is it surprising that we should persist from time to time in keeping at it until the government will see to it that the interests of the people are met as they should be? I am not talking railways, because I am in opposition.
I was talking railways when I was not in opposition. I am making the same I speeches, putting forward the same argu-! ments now that I was putting forward in

the local House when I was there ten; years ago. This is my third parliament here, and I have been every session talking the same things before this House. So it cannot be said that 1 am talking in opposition in a way that I would not be talking if I were a supporter of the government. Last year I was told that at last we had reached the point where the good people of the county of Victoria, and of the island of Cape Breton generally were to receive that which was their due; a sum of $200,000, which would be a fair amount to start with, was put in the estimates. Of that sum five-twelfths were passed before prorogation, and since we came back here the other seven-twelfths have been passed by this government, adopting apparently the policy of the outgoing government. There was no criticism from either side that the amount was more than necessary to make a fair start on this railway. Everything was honourable, everything was fair and just, and tenders were called for, and I had every reason to believe that the work was going on. There was plenty of money then in the treasury to build this road, that money is in the treasury to-day; it cannot be said that the country is any worse off to-day than it was last year, and -there is no reason to expect that the people of that country will be given shabby treatment after struggling so long as they have to gee this money, or that the government is going to strike the cup from their mouth just as they are about to quaff it.


Robert Laird Borden: How long is that line?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Only 22 or 23 miles, a very easy route. The hon. gentleman will find the report in the Department of Railways, and there cannot be any great difficulty in the way. I think it will be found to be as level a piece of country as there is anywhere on the island of Cape Breton, no large cuts at all. It is true the government will have to cross a ve-ry narrow arm at a place called the Little Narrows, and put a bridge there. But that is practically the only obstruction worth talking about on this whole line.
I have here resolutions, which I am not going to trouble the House with reading, passed by the county -council of Victoria county and the board of trade of the town of B-addeck, and letters and petitions from and to end of the county, praying and begging that this work be pressed forward. I bring it up now, Mr. Speaker, as I hope that there may be supplementary estimates brought down and there is yet an opportunity for the right hon. gentleman and the Minister of Railways and Canals to reconsider it and restore the vote to the estimates. Should they d-o this it will give the good people of the county of Victoria this boon for which they have sought so
long. In th-e summer time we could have by this branch direct or easy connection between the Bras d'Or il-alte and the Intercolonial railway. The nearest point, the ton of Baddeck, is ten or twelve miles away and the distance is traversed by boats. That is all very well in summer, but at this time of the year we have no way of getting there at -all except by crossing -over the ice, and it is in that manner that we are obliged to get th-e mails in the meantime. In spring it is impossible to cross tlie ic-e and we -a-re shu-t out entirely. We were hoping that if this- line were built these difficulties would -be overcome, or at least, that we would -have continuous connection between the town of Baddeck and the Intercolonial railway, and w-e also hope that the government will find it desirable and proper to extend the road north to those great fishing ports to which I have referred. I do not wish to take up any more of the time of th-e House but I feel that it is my dii-ty to the people I represent here to keep at this thing until something is done. Tibe-re is something in the records of this House -about the Widow Murphy's cow -that gave a great deal of trouble to a former government, -and this- is going to be -a Widow Murphy's cow until something is -done to -carry out the wishes of the people in that section of th-e country in regard to this project.


Francis Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection at all to the papers being brought down. Tenders were asked for this railway by newspaper advertisement on the 9th of September and they were to be in on the 12th October. Two tenders were submitted -and they -averaged $69,000 . per mile. I co-ul-d not see my way -clear, wih-en only $200,000 bad been voted, t-o allow this work to go on. I did not think, notwithstanding the natural resources that are to be developed, that we were justified in building a road at that expense. But, w-hen we get to look into the matter and see if a -cheaper ro-ad which will -answer the purpose


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How did these -tenders compare with the -estimate of the engineer?


Francis Cochrane: That is quite a proper question. I think that the 22 miles for which tenders were asked were estimated by the engineers to cost $1,485,000. The hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) has told the House that it was a level country, easy to build a railway through, and yet we h-ave two tenders under which the cost will average $69,000 a mile. I did not feel that we w-er-e justified in going on, but I have no hesitation in saying that it is the intention of the government to investigate this matter and see if a cheaper route cannot be got. I do not think the engineers had

sufficient time to work out this route. We will have no hesitation in bringing down the papers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for resuming the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Turriff for the second reading of Bill (No. 6) an Act to lamend the Railway Act.
John Gillanders Turriff: I am ready to go on.


Robert Laird Borden: For the reasons already explained to my hon. friend (Mr. Turriff) I do not think we can go on with this Bill. It is of course, his privilege if he so desires to have a vote taken on it. On a previous occasion I mentioned to him that it was the intention of the government to have the Railway Act revised and a consolidation made of the vary numerous amendments which have been made to it. Up to the present time we have not had an opportunity of giving this subject sufficient consideration; in fact, we have given it very little consideration beyond this that we have arrived lat the conclusion that the course to which I have alluded is necessary. The Department of Railways and Canals and the chairman of the Railway Ooimmission are of the opinion that it ought to be done. Therefore, it seems undesirable to attempt to carry out the proposals embodied in the various Bills now upon the order paper, and it is for that reason that I have asked imy hon. friend and other gentlemen who have proposed amendments, to 'allow them to stand until we can do that effectively.
I am anxious of course that any discussion that would be helpful in connection with this Bill should take place, in order that we may have suggestions from hon. members. I do not wish to limit discussion in any way, but I do desire that these various Bills should stand over until we have had an opportunity of considering them all. That, of course, will be followed by the bringing down of a Bill next session which will give the most ample opportunity to lion, gentlemen to put forward any of the proposals contained in these various Bills.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Next session only.


Robert Laird Borden: Next session, yes.


John Gillanders Turriff: My only object was to put these special tariffs under the control of the Railway Commission, just as the regular tariffs now are. There is a good deal of force in what the Prime Minister says, and I am quite willing to let the Bill stand.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. gentleman desires to offer any additional reasons in sup-Mr. COCHRANE.
port of this Bill or in connection with any other point relating to the Railway Act, I should be very glad to hear them.
Bill allowed to stand.



[Stage Direction]
Mir. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Portage la Prairie) moved second reading of Bill (No. 7), to amend the Railway Act. He said: I presume that the remarks of the right hon. gentleman in reference to the Bill of my hon. friend (Mr. Turriff), will have application to the Bill which I now move the second reading of. I appreciate the position taken by the right hon. gentleman, that in view of the purpose to immediately consolidate the Railway Act it would be well not to pass, at present, any legislation of this character. There is, however, a situation obtaining in the country to-day with regard to one feature of our railway legislation, to which the attention of parliament ought to be emphatically drawn, and I trust that when the government comes to consolidate the Railway Act it will introduce into it provisions along the lines laid down in this Bill. It will be observed at once that this legislation touches ground that has been fought over time and again in parliament, and that, I may say, has been battled upon for fifty years in the courts of Canada. It touches the question of the liability of railway companies for the loss caused by the killing or injuring of animals by their trains or engines. Legislation with respect to this matter was passed in 1903 at the instance of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) and, as I understand it, that hon. gentleman is in gre'at part, if not altogether, responsible for the present wording of sub-section 4 of section 294 of the Railway Act. It is this subsection which in one of its features the Bill purposes to alter in order to meet the conditions which prevail almost wholly I believe in western Canada. This Bill purposes to amend the present state of affairs by a method which has two features. The first is, by endeavouring to fix upon a standard cattle guard which shall be of real use for the purpose for which it is intended. It provides, by amending the subsection I have referred to, in cases where animals are injured on the tracks of a railway company and where the injury is caused by the negligence of the company, that the company shall be made to pay. In introducing this legislation I am not moved by any desire to cater to any unwarranted public feeling against railway corporations. I am one of those who believe that a corporation, however large, is entitled to the full benefit of just laws. But, I believe, that, whether by an error of parliament or not, the Railway Act at present is such that the owners of animals are placed at a serious disadvantage in con-

tending for their rights in the courts, a disadvantage which they would not suffer if even the common law prevailed. It will be necessary for me, in order to make clear the necessity for this amendment, to state what the present law is, and I shall endeavour to do so concisely and with the use of as few technical terms as possible.
Robert Laird Borden: Is the hon. gentleman now dealing with both his proposed amendments?


Mr. MEIGHEN.: To the first amendment I do not attach anything like the importance I do to the second, in clause 2 of the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: In order to make it perfectly plain will the hon. gentleman in each case give the' existing legislation, if he has it before him, so that it may be on ' Hansard.'


Arthur Meighen: The first clause of the Bill provides that all cattle guards, to be constructed hereafter, indeed all cattle guards to be used hereafter, shall, as to their method of construction, style, and dimensions, be submitted to the Railway Commission and be approved by them. The existing law in this respect is in section 254 which provides that all fences, gates and cattle guards to be erected by railway companies shall be such as are suitable and sufficient to protect cattle or other animals getting upon the railway lands. It is hard to conceive of legislation more strict in terms than that, it puts upon the railway company the burden of having fences, gates and cattle guards suitable and sufficient to prevent animals getting on the tracks, and in that regard it is hard to improve upon the existing law.
The only addition I make to that is this. I have a clause providing that the cattle guards, which of all appliances of the railway company have proved most effective, be submitted to the Railway Commission, and be approved of by them before they shall be considered sufficient. It may be argued that if we do that, and if the Railway Commission approve of a certain form and size of cattle guard, should animals get over it the railway company might be relieved of liability. I am not prepared to say that will or will not happen; but I do think that if a railway company would provide the very best appliance in this regard, as it would be compelled to do if the commission had to approve of it, there would be much less injury and loss suffered than there is at the present time, when the railway company is compelled to provide no special kind of cattle guard, but just such as is sufficient. So that I think that a substantial reform without any serious risk would be effected if we compelled the companies to submit their cattle guards to the
Railway Commission for approval. But I attach no such importance to section 1 as I do to section 2 of this Bill, because I believe that section 2 will effect the reform that section 1 is intended to assist in effecting. That is to say, section 2, in conjunction with the present law in this regard, will have the effect of making the companies pay where they ought to pay, and if they do, they will see to it that the cattle guard is suitable and sufficient. So that clause 2 is the vital clause of this Bill, and on it I desire to found the brief argument which I intend to present. Section 2 provides that subsection 4 of section 294 of the present Act shall read in this way:
When any horses, sheep, swine or other cattle at large, whether upon the highway or not, get upon the property of the company, and by reason thereof damage is caused to or by such animal, the party suffering such damage shall, except in the cases otherwise provided for by the next following section, be entitled to recover the amount of such damage against the company in any action in any court of competent jurisdiction, unless the company establishes that such animal so got upon the property of the company, without the negligence of the company or the omission of any duty binding on the company under this Act.
Subsection 4 of section 294 is the section of the Railway Act which deals with the case of injury to or by animals when they get on a right of way after being at -large. It has no reference, whatever, to injuries caused to or by animals at highway crossings, or animals that get upon the right of way from an inclosure where they are not at large. The cases of animals which get on the right of way through being at large constitute the large field of cases in which under the present law the railway company is able to escape. In other cases there is no serious complaint. At present the clause in the Act is the same as clause 2 of this Bill, except that after it states that dam age can be recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction, it has the following words :
Unless the company proves that 6Uck animal got at large through the negligence or -wilful act of the owner or his agent or the custodian of such animal or his agent.
So that under the present law the company shoulders the burden prima facie; that is to say, if an animal, after being at large, is killed or injured on the right of way, the company is prima facie liable, but it escapes the moment it shows that the animal got at large in the first place through the negligence or wilful act of the owner. The purpose of the Bill is to keep the burden on the company, but to alter that burden. Instead of permitting the company to prove that the animal got at large through the negligence or wilful act of the owner, it says to the company: prove that

your own skirts are clear; no matter how it got at large, prove that it got on your right of way without any negligence or omission on your part. The present burden which the company has to discharge is so light and so capable of being discharged, that in western Canada the company easily escapes in 90 per cent of all the cases that occur, the great majority of which never go to court at all. Now, in the law at present there is a provison that this does not affect the liability of a man who takes down a railway fence or otherwise interferes with railway property. I have omitted that, but I am quite willing that it should be added to the clause as I propose it. To my mind it will be unnecessary in the law, if amended as I propose, but it appears to some that it is necessary, and I have no objection to adding it.
The question before the House' is- whether the law amended as I propose, will meet the exigencies of present conditions better than the old law. I submit that it will. I am free to admit that conditions are not the same all over Canada. In eastern Canada, where industrial and farming life have reached a more advanced stage than in western Canada, the conditions are quite different. In eastern Canada animals are not found at large nor is there any necessity why they should be at large to anything like the same extent as in the west. I do not think it was ever the intention of parliament to legislate that it would be unlawful for animals to run at large in this country, but the effect of the present law is to go to that extent, for we might just as^ well legislate that it is unlawful for an animal to be at large as to legislate that .if it should get at large by some omission of the owner and get into the right of way, where there is no fence, the owner has no redress should an accident occur. That was the judgment in the ease of Clayton and the Canadian Northern, in which case Chief Justice Howell observed that the effect of the law was to prohibit the running at large of animals anywhere in Canada. Any one who knows anything of the west will understand that such a law would work most serious injury to that part of our country. The conditions there are such that it is essential that animals should be allowed to run at large within certain limits and restrictions. In eastern Canada however, that necessity is not so urgent and in that section the law may have worked fairly well. But in the west, there is a daily_ slaughter of animals by railway companies running up into thousands and thousands of dollars, and 90 per cent, of these cases are due to the negligence of the railway companies. I doubt if there is an hon. member from that western country who will not say that the slaughter of animals there by the railways, through night and day, is one of the chief causes of * Mr. MEIGHEN.
hardship and hard times in individual instances and one that mc>3t persistently reaches the ears of members of parliament. That is one of the complaints which is most earnestly and insistently urged by farmers and ranchers through their organizations, and relief from which they have been seeking from this parliament for years back. I doubt if there is one hon. member from the west who will not say that, within his own personal knowledge, the railway companies, through their negligence, whether wilful or not, have been the cause of determining the weal or woe of many of our settlers. Many a man struggling to lift his head above water has had it pushed down again by the slaughter of his animals by railway trains.
Why is this the case, and how is it going to be remedied? It is the case because the running at large of animals in that country is a commercial and industrial necessity. Under the present law, animals at large are not permitted to go within half a mile of the railway right of way. If they do and are killed at a crossing, the railway company is not responsible, unless the animal is in charge of some responsible person. The amendment I propose does not affect that law in any degree, The farmer who lets his animal run at large and whose animal is killed at a crossing will have to bear the loss. That is a risk which the farmer takes if he lets his animal at large in proximity to a railway. Whether that law be just or unjust, I am not saying, but it is the law, and this amendment which I propose does not interfere with it. The farmer takes the risk if his animal is killed on the highway crossing, but if it is killed on the railway, company's track, the company is responsible. If an animal gets on the right of way, prima facie the railway company is responsible, because if the company had complied with the Act, the animal at large could not have got on its right of way. Therefore should the animal be injured, the burden of proof ought to be on the railway company. 90 per cent, of the animals injured or killed were necessarily turned out at large by the farmers.
What will be the result if the law is amended in this direction? It will mean that if a railway fence is down and an animal gets on the track, if the gate is open, if the cattle guard is defective, or if there is no cattle guard, and as a result an animal is killed, then the railway company will be bound to pay, and I ask who should pay in such a case? What is the common law? What is the law that through a thousand years of British jurisprudence has been established, as what is fair and right between man and man? Where there is negligence and loss results, the party whose negligence is the proximate cause of the loss is made to pay. Is that the case

under the present Railway Act? Things are reversed for the benefit of the company. If, through reckless driving of my automobile, I kill a horse on the highway I have to pay for it, and I cannot say that the farmer was negligent by letting his horse on the highway. Although he may have been negligent, his negligence was not the proximate cause of the loss. Why should that be reversed in the case of a railway? That simple common-sense principle is reversed in the case of the Railway Act. The railway company may neglect the simplest precautions in the construction of their road. In the west they seldom have cattle guards, they are not only'1 negligent, but they are wilfully in default, and by reason of that, animals get on the right of way, and are killed. Whose negligence is the proximate cause? Not that of the farmer,who suffers the loss, his is the further cause; the proximate cause is the negligence of the railway company. This question has been argued in courts of law, the case I am presenting has been argued in Carruthers and the Canadian Pacific railway. The Supreme Court of Canada held that by subsection 4 of section 294, that plain condition of the common law was altered, and no matter how negligent the company were, no matter how flagrantly they had violated the provisions of the Railway Act, they utterly escaped liability for the loss caused proximately by that negligence, by simply showing that these animals were at large through the negligent or wilful act of the owner.


Wilfrid Laurier: As I construe the present law, and I have followed my hon. friend's argument with great interest, by the amendment of 1910, whenever an accident takes place the conduct of the company is not at all in issue, it may be negligent or not negligent, the only question is whether or not the plaintiff himself was negligent. If the plaintiff is negligent he cannot recover, but if not, even although the company is not in default and has complied with the law, the plaintiff must recover.


Arthur Meighen: I quite agree with .the law -as stated by my right lion, friend, but the law as interpreted has the effect of utterly reversing that plain rule of common law. The law as so interpreted holds that the conduct of the railway company is not in question, even if that conduct or misconduct is the proximate cause of the loss. Under the common law, their conduct would be seriously in question and the company would have to pay if it was the proximate cause of the loss. I need not argue whether or not that is the law as interpreted. Members who are familiar with -the law will know that not only in Carruthers and the Canadian Pacific railway, but in several cases it has
been so interpreted and hon. members will recall that in the case of Clayton and the Canadian Northern railway in 1908, where Chief Justice Howell of the Court of Appeals in Manitoba gave a dissenting judgment, His Lordship argued that all the holdings up to that time in favour of the law as I maintain it should not be, were wrong, but he was overruled by the majority of the court, and in that case as in every other one up to the present it has been held that the railway companies utterly escaped no matter how flagrantly negligent they were or how they violated the provisions of the Act. However, negligent they may be they escape by saying that somebody further back was negligent, and in that way they are enabled by the adjudgment of this parliament to reverse a rule of the common law. I should have said that the Supreme Court held the company liable in Carruthers and the Canadian Pacific railway, but the Supreme Court has held and it has been held in numerous cases that the company escape liability if they can throw on the farmer or owner the burden of having negligently allowed the animal at large.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is that the way you interpret the statute as it now stands?


Arthur Meighen: I would interpret tire statute as the courts do. I would not pretend to give an opinion that would be of value to the House, but I cannot see how the courts could otherwise interpret the law.


Mr. BURNHAM.: Have the courts laid it down that where an animal is on the property of another, a trespasser, the onus is on the person who owns the property to prove that the animal was not on his property by right but improperly?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, the courts have so interpreted subsection 4. This parliament has proceeded upon the assumption that if an animal is on the right of way of a railway company under our Act, and is injured, prima facie the company is responsible, the idea being that the animal could not be there if the company had complied with the law so that there has never been any question on that point, the burden has been on the company and so they have escaped.


Wilfrid Laurier: The present statute provides that the company shall be liable unless it can prove that the animal got at large through the negligence or wilful act or omission of the owner or his agent or custodian. Then, as I understand the statute and construe the law, the only question for the -court is not to examine what has been the conduct of the company, but what has been the conduct of the plain-
250?

tiff. If the claimant shows that he has not been negligent the company is liable. It is not open to the company then to say: We have fulfilled all the conditions placed on us by the law. The law says that the company, whether it has fulfilled the conditions of the law or not, is liable and must be so unless it can show that the plaintiff is at fault.


Arthur Meighen: And the onus is on the company.


Robert Laird Borden: If the onus is on the company the statute seems to make a prima facie case against the company, but it discharges the company, according to the argument of my hon. friend, upon proof of something which is not directly connected with the cause of the accident. It makes the company liable without proof of negligence, it then discharges the company by proof of some remote cause which is not directly connected with the destruction of the animal.


Arthur Meighen: The only question is this-perhaps I am not getting to the point the leader of the opposition has said, the courts have held that the company is prima facie liable, but they escaped by proving something not immediately connected with the loss, just as the leader of the government states. Now the only question is this -I am not sure it pertains directly to the issue-if an animal is wilfully turned out by the farmer and then gets on the right of way without any neglect whatever on the part of the company, is the company responsible? That is to say, suppose the company has lived up to the law in every regard, take for example a case where they do not have a fence, where the Railway Commissioners do not compel them to fence, and an animal breaks out and gets upon the right of way, is the company responsible? I know of no case where the company has been held responsible in those circumstances. There was the case in British Columbia, Siegel vs. the Canadian Pacific railway, where the company was relieved, so that the leader of the opposition would not be correct in saying that the company's conduct is not in question. The company's conduct is not in question if they show that the owner of the animal negligently turned the animal out, in that case the company's conduct is not in question. But if, on the contrary, it is shown that the animal broke away, and without any negligence on the part of the owner, then the company's conduct may be in question under Siegel and the Canadian Pacific railway. I hope that the decision in Siegel and the Canadian Pacific railway is not good, though I do not wish to give an opinion different to that court in British Columbia, But what is laid down as undoubtedly the law in the western province is this, that


Sir WILFRID BARRIER.: once the company show the animal got at large by the negligence of the owner, then-conduct is no longer in question. Now how should the law be amended? The proposal is to amend it by asking the company to pay the man who turned the animal out. If the animal is turned out negligently and is killed on the highway the farmer loses; but if it gets on the right of way he is prima facie responsible, and if it is killed there then the burden is on him to show that it got there without any negligence on his part, or in violation of the Railway Act. Surely that is simple, and that is what the law ought to be. If an animal is an extraordinary animal, and gets at large, or is turned at large, and the company, has complied -with the law, and the animal is killed, the company should not pay. But if the company has not complied with the law, then the company's neglect, the company's defeasance, is the immediate and approximate cause of the loss, and they ought to pay in every case. Now to illustrate by particular cases, I have no doubt that hon. members of this House could give illustrations of the escape of the company where they should have paid, and every hon. member, if he thinks over his own case, will see that the reason the company escaped was just the reason I have given, because, in the first place, the animal was at large through the negligence, or even through the wilful act of the owner. I know, for instance, of one case where a man was leading a horse to water and two others were following. Only one was being led by the halter, and there was no fence between him and the highway. Something frightened the animals and they got away, including the one that was being led. There was no fence on the railway to protect the track, they got upon the railway track, two of them were killed, the one that was being led with the halter, and one of those that were following. Now it will be clear to the House where the owner of those animals will land in a court of law. In respect of the one that was being 'led, that one did not get at large through the negligence or wilful act of the owner, very likely the company would be made to pay. In the case of the other one that was not being led, although the company's negligence was the cause of its loss, the only cause of its loss, the immediate and proximate cause, the company escapes. Then take the other case. There have been cases of ranchers in the west, farmers in the west, having animals by the score at large because, in the great majority of cases, there is no fencing at all; it would be practically impossible to carry on business in that country to keep them always within an enclosure. Now, if the railway fences are up, and if the cattle guards are there as provided by

the Act, if the gates are up and closed as provided by the Act, and things are moderately safe, the animal may be killed at a crossing and the man loses, that is all there is about it. He takes that risk when he turns them out. But if the animal, through the negligence of the company, gets upon the right of way through there being no fence in violation of the law, or no "cattle guard in violation of the law, or through there being no gate or a poor gate, or a poorly fastened gate, why should they not pay? The Court of Appeals has held the contrary, and there could be no doubt under their reading of the law. If what my friend behind me says were the law there would be no object in amending it; if it were not held that the company escapes when they prove that the animal got at large through the negligence or wilful act of the owner, there would be no purpose in amending the law. That would be alL right. But the unfortunate thing is that that has not been held to be the law, and it appears to me that it is not intended to be the law by subsection 4 as it at present reads.
Now I wish to make reference to the present condition of the obligation of the company in regard to fencing, to gates and to cattle guards, because I wish to show that at the present time and under present conditions, there might possibly be a very few cases where, under the present law the owner might recover and under the law as amended he might not, there might possibly be cases, though extremely rare, if any at all, and in the course of a short time there could be none.
Now, it is well known that, under the authority of the Railway Act, the Board of Railway commissioners have power to compel railway companies to fence their right of way, or, in other words, the company has to fence its right of way and provide gates and cattle guards unless absolved by the Railway Commission. Under the authority of that Act, the Board of Railway commissioners undertook to make an order that, before the expiration of a certain date, all railway companies in this country should have their fences erected and their cattle guards and gates provided. That was a general order applicable to all railways in Canada and of effect throughout the whole country. From that order the railway companies appealed and, as I understand it, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the board had not power to make so general an order that their orders must be definite and confined to specific areas. In accordance with that ruling of the Supreme Court, the railway commissioners, have, since that time, made very sweeping orders, but none so sweeping as to be ruled ultra vires by the Supreme Court. The policy of the board has been to bring about, at the earliest
possible date, the time when it shall be compulsory all over this country for fences, gates and cattle guards to be provided and that even though the neighbourhood is not fenced and closed or inhabited the company's right of way must be fenced and gates and cattle guards provided. I am informed, if not by the commission, at all events by a member, that it is expected within a year that all the railways of this country will be, under order from the board of railway commissioners, and that a valid order, compelled to have their fences, gates and cattle guards completed. Before the expiration of that time if a case arose where a railway company were not in default, that is where they did not have to erect a fence or cattle guard, and an animal got on the line by tne negligence of the owner and was killed, if under such circumstances it were held by our courts that in the meantime under the present law the company would have to pay, they would no.t have to pay under this amendment. I do not say it \frould be so held, but I do say that the number of cases will be practically nil, and that we might just as well consider them a negligible quantity. The great class of cases that comes before the notice of the public, or before the notice of lawyers and the courts, is where the animals are out through the purpose, the designation, the intention of the owner himself and these animals, through the absolute neglect and defiance by the railway company of the law, get upon the right of way and are killed. This represents a great number of cases where injustice is suffered and for which a remedy is urgently needed and demanded. It is that class of cases that this amendment aims at effecting a remedy for and in my humble opinion it certainly effects tbe remedy. In the course of a year, as asserted by the commission, there should be no case where the railway companies could justly be held liable now and would not be held liable under the amended law. So, it seems to me we can be absolutely fair to the companies, make the law clear to them and clear to any man who runs and reads, by passing this legislation and then there will be no case, or very few if any cases at all, where an injustice can be perpetrated. I do not know whether I have made this clear. 1 have endeavoured to put the case as clearly as I could. I make no pretence of having a better knowledge of the law in reference to railways than any other hon. member of this House, and I have the utmost deference for the opinion of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) or any other hon. member who has interrupted me, but I have not come to the House without a thorough investigation in this regard and without actual experience in the courts of law where it has been held, held against me and held on appeal.
[DOT]2511

that the law was just as stated by myself at the present time. I know of cases that occur almost every day, of cases that come-into small offices in the country, week after week, that never get to the courts at all, simply because it is well known and understood that the company can escape by showing that the animal got on the track through the negligence or wilful act of the owner, no matter what their default may be, and it is well known that the company can show this out of the mouth of the plaintiff himself the moment he goes into the box. This will not only alter the ruling of the courts and make it fairer to the farmer, and no more than fair to the railways, but in such cases as have already come to the court it will make the law so clear and plain and the liability so definite and fixed that there will be less litigation than in the past, or, in the great majority of cases, the railway will at once pay. They do at the present time, when they recognize their liability. It is very rarely, speaking comparatively, that they contest a claim in which they are liable at all; they usually pay or make a settlement of some kind, because, by reason of the decisions of the courts, the law has become fairly well known. If the Act is amended along the lines here urged, I believe that eight times for once they pay now, they will pay without any litigation at all, and that not in any case under this law, will they be corn-lie! led, where they have absolute right and justice on their side to pay; that is, wherever they are not responsible, they will not pay. I make no allegation at all that in all respects as affects the railway law in regard to the killing of cattle this goes the whole way in effecting the reform. I say in the case of animals at large which represents the great majority of cases that it goes a long way and effects a great reform.
There will still, perhaps, be a class of cases where loss results and nobody's negligence is the cause, where the railway company is not negligent and therefore not responsible and where the farmer is not negligent and therefore, not responsible. I believe myself that we should move to amend the law in that regard, and, as the Prime Minister stated, the Railway Act is to be amended, I throw out this suggestion, whatever it may be worth, that in that class of cases, where the loss results, and no man's negligence is the cause, namely, the class of cases where the loss results simply from the incidence of the railway companies themselves, that is to say, a loss caused by reason of the operation of a railway, which is a dangerous operation ir>. the country, a loss incident to the running of railway trains, and is founded on the negligence of no person or company at all, I believe that justice would be better met by making the company pay rather Mr. MEIGHEN.
than by making the farmer pay. I do not say that to play the role of demagogue in any way, but I say it after some little consideration and for this reason that while the railway company is a private corporation and a corporation entitled, generally speaking, to just as much protection under the law as a private individual, there is this difference that, especially in later times, a railway company partakes of the nature of a semi-public corporation. There is a great, and increasing sense in which the railway is a corporation of a public character in that its assets become more and more, as the years go by, socially created assets. It is serving a great public rather than a private end and by reason of that fact the gains that a railway-company make, are, or should be, in part, the gains of the public and the losses that a railway company make are the losses of the public.
The gains a railway company makes are the gains of the public, and the losses of a railway company are the losses of the public, and, in the ultimate, the losses suffered by a corporation of this semi-public character fall back upon the public, and that is where losses of the class I have just last referred to should fall. That is to say: losses that are incidental to the operation of railway trains, and that are caused not by the negligence of any one or of any company. It, therefore, would appear to me, as the better legislation, and as the better purpose to be kept in view, to shoulder that class of legislation on the railway corporation instead of leaving it upon the shoulders of the individual. That again is a class of oases not directly affected by this amendment. The purpose to be affected by the amendment I have outlined at the beginning of my remarks, and I urge it upon the attention of the House with all the earnestness of which I am possessed. I believe it will effect an important reform, and that it will effect that reform without doing violence to the duty we owe to corporations, to individuals, or to anybody.


Mr. KYTE.: I would like to know if the remedy the hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) is seeking for the conditions in the west by this legislation, would apply to the conditions in the province of Nova Scotia. A few years ago in the case of Gordon vs. Dickie, the Supreme Court of Canada held that in Nova Scotia cattle were not permitted to be at large, that the owner was obliged to keep his cattle fenced in, and that if cattle were killed or injured in any way while at large the owner had to bear the loss. The conditions prevailing in the west are similar in some respects to those prevailing in Nova Scotia, where large pastures are held in common, and where the farmers are obliged to allow their cattle to roam at
[DOT]2513

large. As the law at present is, if one of these animals should wander on the right of way, by reason of a defect in the fence, or through a gate being left open negligently by the 'company and the animal is killed, the owner has no recourse. I am heartily in favour of the principle of this Bill as explained by the hon. gentleman. Two years ago, a valuable horse belonging to a constituent of mine, and which was roaming at large, as is the custom in that part of the country, wandered on the Intercolonial through a defect in the feijce which was known to the section foreman for several months, and the animal being killed, application was made to the department for compensation, and the owner was told that, inasmuch as the horse was roaming at large and had not strayed on the right of way from tire owner's property, they were not liable for damages. I should be very glad, indeed, if this principle which the hon. gentleman is seeking to have incorporated in the Railway Act would apply to the Intercolonial as well ns to ev-ery other railway, so that the residents in that part of the country through which the Intercolonial railway runs might get justice in such cases.


Arthur Meighen: Of course, the entire Railway Act applies to the whole of Canada, and the only distinction I drew was that the exigencies of the conditions in western Canada demanded this legislation more than they did elsewhere. The Railway Act is no respecter of provinces, and has the same application to one province as to the other.	-


George William Kyte: The decision in Gordon vs Dickie was that cattle were not permitted to be at large in Nova Scotia, and I understand they are so permitted in the west.


Arthur Meighen: In the west, the province delegates to the municipalities the power to allow the running at large of animals, but of course an animal must be kept on the property of the owner, and if it goes beyond that and it is injured the owner is responsible. But that does not affect this Bill. Even though that may be the law, the liability for the death of the animal if it gets on the right of way is altogether another question. I submit that the fact that an animal was killed on the right of way through the negligence of the company should not be a barrier to recovery, and if this Bill should become law it would not be a barrier in Nova Scotia, any more than in the western provinces. As to its application to the Intercolonial railway I do not feel myself qualified to speak.


Mr. OLIVER.: What the hon. member from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) has said as to the importance of this matter might very well give reason for the Prime 80
Minister to change his mind in regard to his decision not to permit any amendments to the Railway Act this session. I can assure the Prime Minister and the government that the condition in the west, because of the legislation as it stands, or, as it is interpreted, is a very great grievance and a very great hardship. It is a condition which has existed for -some time, and I can tell the Prime Minister that the people of the west who are suffering under that grievance cannot look with equanimity upon his decision not to legislate this session in the direction proposed by this Bill. In this case, the right hon. gentleman might very well make an exception, and I think the hon. members representing western constituencies will back up what I say in this regard.
With the amendment itself, as stated in its purpose by the hon. member (Mr. Meighen) I am not altogether in agreement. His complaint against the present law is that the company escapes liability unless the owner of the animal can prove lack of negligence on his part. My fault with this proposal is that the company will under that legislation escape liability unless the claimant can prove negligence on the company's part.


Arthur Meighen: The company has to disprove it.


Frank Oliver: Theoretically, the company has to disprove it, but in actual practice the claimant would have to prove and the company would thereby, escape.


Arthur Meighen: I do not understand my hon. friend. How could it be in actual practice if it is -not the law.


Frank Oliver: I will explain. This legislation says that on the company fulfilling certain requirements laid down by the Railway Commission, the company shall not be liable. The Railway Commission cannot lay down a requirement that will be efficient and that the company can fulfil in regard to cattle guards. There is no cattle guard yet invented that will keep cattle off the track. Until such cattle guard is invented it is futile to say that this legislation would protect the owner of the cattle or would lay liability definitely on the railway company beyond the point I have stated.


Arthur Meighen: That is the first section.


Frank Oliver: The first section read in connection with the second-. The two parts .must be read together; the one affects the other; -and, in my humble judgment, the provision of the first part read in connection with the provisions of the second part "would -absolutely relieve the railway company from- liability. The matter is too serious to be left as- a matter of opinion between my hon. friend and myself. He has stated his reason for -bringing in- the


J1EVISED EDITION COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Bill; I have stated my reasons for disagreeing with the provisions of the Bill as not being effective.
Robert Laird Borden: Has the hon. gentleman any suggestion?


Frank Oliver: Yes. Before I make a suggestion, however, I wish to say that the law as it stands at present is, I understand, either entirely or measurably satisfactory to the part of the country where in the ordinary course of affairs all stock is kept in inclosures; bnt just for that very reason it is entirely unsatisfactory to those parts of the country where in the ordinary course of affairs the stock runs at large; and just as soon as the legislation now on the statute-book w>as passed, at that time and always afterwards those parts of the country *where the stock generally speaking runs >at large have felt themselves under a very great disadvantage. This legislation became effective in May, 1910, and during the suimer of 1910 and the summer of 1911 complaint was continually made against the consequences of that legislation. I am not sure who was directly and immediately responsible for that legis-tion, but I am under the impression that my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie had something to do with it.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I introduced the legislation which the government adopted.


Frank Oliver: There is no doubt of the intent of the legislation, and no doubt of its efficiency in a very large part of the *country; but the very thing that makes it efficient in one part of the country makes it inefficient in another part. I repeat that the condition is so urgent that I think the government would do well to meet the case at this session. As to the suggestion which I have to make, I merely wish to put before the House again the clause of the Bill amending the Railway Act that was introduced at the last session by the late Minister of Railways. That clause was one of a number of clauses amending the Railway Act. It met with such opposition in the House at the time it was brought forwiard that it was dropped out of the Bill in order that the other provisions might go through. But I think that on mature consideration the House will recognize that that provision would be comprehensive and adequate, and would be absolutely fair as between the railway company and the public, while I admit that it does not give the railway company that percentage of advantage which it seems to. have been the principle of all previous legislation to concede. The proposed amendment, which was section 11 of Bill (No. 197) of last session, reads as follows:
Sections 294 and 295 of the principal Act, and sections 8 and 9 of chapter 50 of the statutes Mr. OLIVER.	j ' |
of 1910, are repealed, and the following is enacted as section 294 of the principal Act:- 294. The company shall be liable to the owner for the full value of all horses, sheep, swine or other cattle that may be killed or injured Upon the company's lands through the operation of the railway, save where such killing or injury is caused by reason of any person-
(a)	failing to keep the gates at any farm crossing, at each side of the railway closed, when not in use; or,
(b)	leaving open any gate on either side of the railway provided for the use of any farm crossing without some competent person being at or near such gate to prevent animals
issing through such gate on to the railway; or,
(c)	other than an officer, contractor, or
employee of the company, taking down any nart of the railway fence; or,	...
(d)	turning any animal upon or within the enclosure of any railway company; or,
(e)	except as authorized by said Act, with-11* the consent of the company, riding, leading or driving any animal, or suffering it to enter upon any railway and within the fences and guards thereof; or,
(f)	leaving the gates of the company at railway stations open for the convenience of the company.
It will be observed that the principle is laid down in the first section, that if the cattle are killed on the track the company is liable. There is no question about the kind of fence or the kind of cattle guard or whether there is a fence or cattle guard at all. It is up to the company to see that its cattle guard or fence is such as to beep the cattle out, and if the cattle are not kept out, that is all that has to bv shown. Then there must be exceptions to that, and the list of exceptions which I have read practically follows the provisions that are already in the Act. These exceptions^ might be amended or might be added to if that were found necessary; but the main principle is the declaration that if the cattle are killed on the track, the company is liable for their full value. _ That principle I would wish to see embodied in legislation this session, the more so because since May of 1910, as my hon. _ friend from Portage la Prairie has graphically pointed out, the cattle owners of the western country, and, as my bon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) has pointed out. the cattle owners in Gape Breton as well, are in practice deprived of the protection of the law as against the railway companies. That is >a condition that should not be allowed to remain for a moment longer than is necessary to pass legislation to cure it.
Last session the then Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) was so convinced of the necessity of remedying the situation that he brought in the legislation which I have already placed before the House. For reasons good or bad that legislation was opposed by my hon. friends from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) Souris,

(Mr. SchafEner) Macdonald, (Mr. Staples) Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster). It is for them to say why. In consequence of their opposition that provision had to be dropped out of the Bill in order that the rest of it might pass. Relief was in sight for the people of the west at that time. That opportunity passed by and another has come, and I am satisfied that the people of that country will feel that their interests are not being properly served unless this opportunity be taken advantage of to meet a very special and urgent condition due more parti cularlv to legislation by this parliament which, while curing a certain evil in one part of the country, left the door open wide to evil in another part.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman not see that the legislation he has just read, takes the burden off the railway companies altogether?


Frank Oliver: I see quite the contrary.


Arthur Meighen: Does he not remember that when the legislation was before this House the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) moved an amendment making it clear that the burden of proof was on the companies, and the government rejected that amendment.


Frank Oliver: I do not recall that incident, and I do not know that it is profitable to discuss matters of detail which occurred so long ago; but the point is that this proposal, purports to offer a remedy to an exceedingly undesirable condition. My hon. friend has placed his views before the House, and no one could place them better,_ and I have taken the liberty to submit mine. What I am urging is not so much that my views shall be accepted as that the government shall take up the question on its own responsibility and deal with it efficiently so as to bring about a change in the present undesirable conditions. If anyone has something better to offer than this proposal of mine, I shall be very glad to accept it; but the principle laid down in the first part of the section I have read, is one I certainly wish to see adopted and the only one that will be fair to all parties. My hon. friend from Portage La Prairie has stated several times that it was desirable we should deal justly with the railway companies. Well, we are not dealing unjustly with the railway company. We do not wish to deal unfairly or unjustly with them; but if an animal be killed, whoever killed it should pay for it. If a railway company should kill it, that company should pay for it. That is the principle laid down in this section which I should like to see incorporated in our legislation.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have listened very attentively to the very able argument 80}
of my hon. friend from Portage La Prairie. I sympathize with him very much in the views he has advocated. As I understand he is the author of the law as it stands at present. It was upon his initiative that the statute of 1910 was accepted by the government.


Arthur Meighen: I am not the author of that law at all, nor was it enacted on my initiative. Subsection 4 of section 294 substantially as it is to-day, was enacted at the instance	of my hon.
friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) some time before I was in this House. Two years ago I introduced an amendment which did not substantially affect the law. That amendment the government adopted, and it was useful in so far as it went. It went this far. Previously, under certain conditions, the railways were responsible for injuries caused to animals by their trains or engines. The amendment proposed and accepted by the government enlarges the classes of damages but not the conditions under which the company would have to pay. It did not affect the law as it substantially stood, and as, for all purposes, it stands yet.


Wilfrid Laurier: What I submit is this. If an accident takes place and nobody is at fault-neither the company, nor the owners of the animal-the burden of the loss must fall upon the company. That is, I think, the way my hon. friend put his case. It seems to me that the law' at present goes very far towards embodying in the statute that very idea, and I do not think the Bill my hon. friend proposes at all improves it in that respect.


Arthur Meighen: I do not contend that it does in that respect. I contend that should be the law. It does not affect that class of cases at all, but a much larger class of cases.


Wilfrid Laurier: At present unless the railway company establishes that the animal killed or injured got at large through the negligence, wilful act or omission of its owner or agent or custodian, the railway company is responsible. If a claim be made by the owner of an animal, what is the defence which the company may make? The company cannot say: I am not at fault, I have complied with all the requirements of the law. The company is liable even if its gates were closed, its fences in order, and its cattle guards in good condition. The only defence it can put up is this: You, the owner, were at fault because your animal was at large, and there was no one to look after it. If the company were to say that its fences were in good order, such a plea would not be entertained by the courts.

You cannot escape .the law unless you can show that the man is at faulj, himself. All the issue under the statute as it exists to-day is not the conduct of the company, but of the claimant. If the statute were as my hon. friend suggests that would be reversed. The thing then in issue would be the conduct of the company, because this is the amendment of my hon. friend. The company will be liable.
Unless the company establishes that such animal so got upon the property of the company without the negligence of the company or the omission of any duty binding on the company.
I think on the whole that the existing law is preferable to the proposed amendment.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think my right hon. friend can show a case where a company were made to pay, if they were not in default.


Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle).: I think my hon. friend is wrong in saying that there are no cases like that suggested by the right hon. the leader of the opposition. There is the case of Parks vs. the Canadian Northern railway, where it was decided that the company had no fences, not being bound by law to fence, but they were still held liable on the very principle laid down by the leader of the opposition. It was decided by Chief Justice Mathers, and the decision was maintained on appeal, (18 Western Law Reports, page 118).


Robert Laird Borden: What was decided?


Levi Thomson: I think the question decided was that the company had not fenced, and were not bound by law to fence in that particular locality, but that under section 294 as amended they were liable. That must be the result of the law as it stands.


Arthur Meighen: In practice there are very few cases where the company have not been negligent.


Levi Thomson: Such cases as I have mentioned may not be common, but they may and do happen. I quite approve of the principle laid down, but I think the hon. member may do well to take notice of the objection raised by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), as well as that since raised. Both of these might be easily overcome. The objection raised by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), is a most serious one, and I think if section 254 is left as it is, it will secure everything sought to be brought about by this amendment. By section 254, subsection 3, it will bei seen that the duty is absolutely on the railway company, they must provide fences and guards according to the decisions; suffi-Sir WILFRID IAURIER.
cient fences means absolutely sufficient fences and guards that the animals cannot get over. My hon. friend would do away with that entirely. The establishment of a standard ' guard ' rests with the Railway Commission. The railway companies tell us they cannot invent a cattle guard that will be sufficient, and then, as there must be some decision, the result will be that a standard will be fixed that is not sufficient.
My hon. friend has put in something that he should not have put in. I think he will 'agree that if he wishes to get on with this . amendment the safe way is to drop out that entirely, and leave the section as it was. Then it will be a tolerably effective amendment, as it will provide against the greater part of the evil. I think he would be wise to deal with the other objection too, that is, to leave it in such a way that the company is still liable. It would be a case where, though neither party had been guilty of wrong-doing, still there is a less; and he says, and rightly says, that the railway company should bear that loss.
I am anxious for this Bill to go through. It is important that it should go through at this particular stage, for we have been waiting too long already. The member from Portage la Prairie admits that he did not frame this other clause of the statute of 1910. No doubt he thought himself that those amendments were sufficient at that time. But he will agree with mo that he is not infallible, and if he looks at this carefully he will admit that he has made two serious mistakes, but they can be easily rectified. It is largely a,question of cattle guards. The railway company states that they cannot invent cattle guards which will keep out stock. I am not prepared to admit that, though I am not an expert on cattle guards. But I notice that when people have to do a certain thing or suffer a loss, they generally do it; and I have no doubt at all of the ability of the railway company to invent a cattle guard that will keep out cattle, but I do not believe they will ever do it until they have to. Necessity is the mother of invention, and they can invent something that will be effective. The law says they must but they don't, and the law protects them in case they don't. No doubt the hon. member for Calgary is well posted in all the arguments that favour railway companies; but the fact is that while the legislature says they must, the legislature provides that they should escape the penalty in case they do not. It provides that the farmer should suffer damage if they fail to carry out the requirements of the law. I think that is unreasonable. If the company openly violates the law, why should some one else have to suffer damage in consequence? The company is openly violating the law. Although they say thev cannot carry it out, I doubt the correctness of their statement. They openly

violate the law, and the farmer whose cattle are killed suffers the damage. I think the House will agree that is not just. There is possibly a little prejudice against the contention of the farmer, raised, perhaps, by reason of the way this section is worded. It says that if a man is guilty of negligence or wilful omission, he should not have any remedy. But that is not the approximate cause of the damage. The party who is principally liable, should suffer the damage, and that is no doubt the railway company.
My hon. friend from Richmond, N.S., says that in his province it is not reasonable to expect that the farmers will keep their cattle enclosed all the time, it is usual to let them run at large. I know that in many parts of the west in the ranching country, you cannot carry on business in any other way than by letting them run at. large. Even in the farming country of Saskatchewan it is not possible for farmers continually to keep their cattle in such a way that they may not occasionally get at large through "the negligence or the wilful act or omission of the owner. Take the case of an ordinary farmer in Saskatchewan, where I understand the conditions best. I know a very large portion of the fanners in sections where railways are fenced do not generally enclose their lands. The other day the farmers of the west were given a little lecture by the Minister of Trade and Commerce as to the necessity of mixed farming. I do not think a lecture in this House is ever going to make the farmers of the west go into mixed farming. You must give them a reason for becoming mixed farmers, but if you tell them that they must not keep any stock around their place unless they keep their animals enclosed, then you are going to discourage mixed farming in the west. Even in cases where the farmers have their lands enclosed, it is not usual throughout the winter to keep their lands inclosed (all the time, or to keep their lands inclosed in such a manner that no animal can escape. On the open prairie the snow drifts badly, and it is practically impossi-. ble to keep a gate so clear of drifts that you can open and close it every time you go through. As a matter of course,, that gate will be left open some time in the winter, and an animal may get at large. I hope that this House will be satisfied with the arguments that have been given, and acknowledge that it is only fair-play that we are asking. I hope that my hon. friend will consider the suggestions that have been given, and will agree to correct his amendment where it is at fault.


Mr. CARVELL.: Possibly there may be a grievance in the west that requires amendment, or requires something in the way of
amendment. I am afraid that if this Bill were to pass as it has been drafted, the people in eastern Canada, where the railways are fenced, would be in a worse position than they are at the present time. It seems to me that the law as laid down by the Act of 1910 is almost ideal, so far as ordinary conditions are concerned all over Canada. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the conditions of farming in the west to know whether there are large portions of land that are not fenced, according to section 254 of the Railway Act. But in all eastern Canada I am satisfied that the railways do fence, practically in every case, according to the provisions of the Railway Act. Now the underlying principle of the amendment of 1910 is that the farmer can get paid unless the railway company proves that he is negligent, or guilty of wilful omission in leaving the cattle at large. If we adopt the principle laid down in this Bill we are entirely reversing that, and we are saying that the company is not negligent if it can prove that it has complied with all the requirements of the law. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle so forcibly a railway company might say: We have provided fences four feet six inches high-*-


Arthur Meighen: Let me draw my hon. friend's attention to this point: The Act as pointed out by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, makes the duty of the company absolute to prevent cattle getting on the track. Their fences must be such, and their cattle guards must be such. If it is the case that they do not prevent them from getting on how can they get on except through the negligence or omission of the company?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I cannot understand that because they do get on and under the law, I do not care what the company may say, if the animals do get on the companv is liable, unless they can prove an act of negligence on the part of the owner.


Mr. BENNETT (Calgary).: That is prima facie evidence against the company. .


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, and in my practice I find that it works admirably. I have not had any difficulty in compelling the company to pay in every case where animals have been killed on the track. I am afraid that if the proposed Bill became law I would not be in the same position. I have no doubt whatever that if the animals got on the track the company would say: Our fences were all right, and our cattle guards are of the most approved pattern, it is not our fault, we have done everything we ought to do, and therefore, yon have no right against us. My hon. friend, I presume, has had some experience with railway conmanies. Railway companies keep their fences and cattle

guards in order through the agency of their workmen and officials, and you will never find a section man admitting that his fence or cattle guard is at fault if he can help it. Just as sure as a case goes to court under this Bill, you will find that it will not only be _ the wish, but almost the life of the section man or official, to say:	Our
cattle guards and fences are in perfect condition, which raises at once a question of fact and if the judge or jury decides that, [DOT]as a matter of fact, the cattle guard or fence was in proper condition, the farmer loses. The hon. gentleman desires to provide for a condition of affairs in the west, but, in so far as affairs in the east are concerned, I am satisfied that it would be a misfortune to the farmers if this Bill were made law and I think, that unless I can get some light upon it, I would be almost compelled to vote against the second reading.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend says that he has always succeeded in making the company pay. Can he tell the House of a case where the company has been made to pay in which they had not violated this Act, in which they lived up to the provisions of this Act, and if so, would he give us the particulars?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I may say that I have not been compelled to sue the company since this Act was passed, but I have already collected a number of claims. I have collected half a dozen claims from the Canadian Pacific railway since this Act became law, and all I have been compelled to do, has been to prove that the cattle were on_the railway track and were killed.


Arthur Meighen: Then, if you did not
have any cases yourself, could you give us the particulars of a case in which cattle were killed where the company lived up to the Act?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not long ago I had a case where five sheep got on the railway track. I do not know by what agency, but the fence was torn down and the sheep got on the track. They paid. It may have been some outsider who broke the fence down.


Arthur Meighen: They were in default.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, they must maintain a fence that will keep out the sheep.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend is begging the question.


Arthur Meighen: That is the Act.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If my hon. friend wants to get at the right side of this question let him direct his attention not to section 294 but to section 254. It would appear that there is a great deal of misconception on the part of the legal profession and rail-Mr. CARVELL.
railway companies as to what is meant by subsection 4 of section 254, with regard to fencing the line. When must the railway company fence? I think that the railway company should be compelled to fence every mile of its road and that it should take the same precaution through wilderness land as through cultivated land. I think that if my hon. friend would direct his attention to this section and make it obligatory upon railway companies to fence their track in every place and under every condition and leave section 294 as it is he would meet the difficulty. He would not be creating a condition of affairs which would be beneficial to the people of the west and against the interest of the people of the east, but he would be creating a condition which would benefit everybody and it would not be sectional legislation. Unless I can get some further light I am afraid I will be ' compelled to vote against the second reading of this Bill.


Mr. THOMAS MACNUTT (Saltcoats).: Mr. Speaker, I cannot pretend to approach this question from the standpoint of the lawyer. I will have to leave that to the many eminent lawyers who are here and who can take care of that end of it, but I may make a few remarks and produce some little evidence in the shape of letters from some settlers that the present system in the west is no protection whatever to the farmer. Under the Saskatchewan law it is not illegal for cattle to be at large. I have never heard that it was; in fact, they are encouraged to be at large. The farmers there have accepted a law called the fence law. They recognize that it is better for their cattle to be out on the vacant land getting the grass, they are willing to protect their crops and to do that they are required under law to erect what is called a legal fence and to maintain gates. They are willing to do that; otherwise they cannot collect for any damage which may be inflicted upon their crops. I think that the railway companies should be obliged to protect their property in tire same way not only for the benefit of the farmers but in the interest of the travelling public because many wrecks have been occasioned by animals getting on the track. Under the present law they have to fence their railway, but I think it would be far better if there were no fence at all because the cattle get on the track with the present style of cattle guards. The cattle get over these guards and are entrapped. The fences are very good generally and the cattle guards are very poor. They get in between these fences, a train comes along, the animals are frightened and they run backwards and forwards and cannot get out. If there were no fences at all they would get out on the prairie again. Without better cattle


W. G. GUDNASON.
[Stage Direction]
Winnipeg, March 27, 1911. W. G. Gudnason, Esq.,
Yarbo, Sask.
Dear Sir,-Yours of the 18tli instant to Mr. Chamberlin has been forwarded to me for
j*gp|y#	_	tI would be glad to meet your wishes in this *matter, respecting the settlement of the claim, but inasmuch as there are no legal grounds of liability on the part of this company, I think you should understand that we cannot consistently accede to your wishes. If all claims preferred against a railway company were settled irrespective of legal liability, it would be a serious matter for the shareholders.	,	.
After having given repeated consideration to your claim, I must again respectfully beg to decline the same.
Yours truly,

[Stage Direction]
Solicitor.
Esterliazy, Sask., 19th Jan., 1912. Dear Sir,-I may say that I have had two horses (valued at $600) killed on the track of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, about one mile east of Zeneta, and the so-called cattle guards as used by the Grand Trunk Pacific are utterly useless, as both horses and cattle walk over them as if there was no obstruction at all. As no doubt you are aware, several other farmers have had either horses or cattle killed in this district on the track of the Grand Trunk Pacifio and the loss to the farmers in the district from Yarbo to Atwater would amount to about $3,000. One mare wa3
[Stage Direction]
killed on October 16, 1911, and two others September 4, 1911.
Yours faithfully,

[Stage Direction]
Atwater, Jan. 22, 1912.
Mr. MacNutt.
Dear Sir,-I thought I would write you about my horses that were killed on the Grand Trunk railway last fall; one was killed in September and 3 in October, 3 fillies and one gelding, 2 rising 3 years and 2 rising 2 years; the four were valued at seven hundred dollars. I don't think that I could buy 4 colts as good for that money; also they were all killed on the right of way. They went in over the guards. Horses don't mind the guards one bit; the guards is no good. That is the reason that there are so many killed. There has been a lot of horses killed between Atwater and Yarbo. Mr. Mitchell had 2 killed and Mr. Spense at Zeneta had 2 or 3 killed, and Mr. Stack at Yarbo had two killed, and every one of them killed on right of way. They had gone in over the guards; that is proof enough that the guards are no good.
I hope you will be able to do something in the matter.
Yours truly,

[Stage Direction]
.	Zeneta, Sask., Jan. 20, 1912.
Dear Sir,-I am writing you about the amount of stock the Grand Trunk Pacific railway has killed for me in about one year, which the appraisers valued at $700. In August, 1910, I had one cow killed. The cattle were walking down the yard and were caught by a freight train just leaving Zeneta and were found just across the public crossing on the company's land.
Now there is one whole section of the company's road that is unprotected by any kind of a guard at Zeneta. The cattle and horses go up and down this track for nearly one mile and a half (1J miles) just as they please. And then on September 4, 1911, I had two horses killed outright and one had a leg broken, all of them mares, one was with foal. About one mile from Zeneta these horses had walked over the guard that is laid down on the public crossing and were killed about midway between the crossings. It was plain to see where the horses had run in front of the train for some distance before they were killed. The train could have been stopped easily in both cases, hut they never stop hut jam into any stock that is in front of them. Now about the guards. They are no good to keep horses or cattle from off the track. I have seen them walk over the guards just as though there were a few loose poles in their way. I have written the company about the stock, hut as yet have received no satisfaction at all.
Is there no way to make the company pay for the stock where the guards are no good? The road is practically unprotected from stock going on when they please.
Please let me hear from you in regard to this matter.
Yours truly,

[Stage Direction]
Zeneta, Sask.
Spy Hill, January 26, 1912. Dear Sir,-Yours to hand and noted. There has been killed on the Grand Trunk Pacific in the Spy Hill district, 22 head of cattle and, I think, about 6 horses. There are no cattle guards now at any Of the crossings as they were taken up in December early; when in they are no use as horses and cattle walk across them as if there were none.
Trusting to hear from you on this matter and also on all matters affecting the farmers and our province.
Yours truly,

[Stage Direction]
Atwater, Jan. 17, 1912.
I beg to inform you that a two-year old mare, being worth at least $175, was killed for mo on the railway track of the Grand Trunk railway, on section 5-21-2, west of the first crossing some time in the latter part of August, 1911.
The mare crossed the cattle guards on above mentioned crossing. I did not think it worth while sending in a claim to the railway company as I understand the guards are wliat the law requires.
I would think the government of Canada ought to have big enough eyes to see that the present cattle guards on the Grand Trunk railway are entirely worthless. That is if they ever seen them, and if they have not, it certainly is time they have a sample sent down to' Ottawa, so every member of the parliament that has a horse can put it outside their stable door and give it a trial. As mv farm is only a few rods from tlie track, it is almost impossible to keep the stock off the track.
Hoping you will do all in your power to remedy the present situation with regard to the cattle guards on above mentioned road.
I remain,
Yours very respectfully,
K.	GRIMSRUZ.
Atwater, Sask.
I have read these letters from some farmers that I know personally, as evidence that a great many cattle are killed. I think the Bill would be satisfactory except for the rider. I do not wish to say one word reflecting on the Railway Commission, which everybody in the west highly appreciates; but it seems to me that the official who passed the present cattle guards did not act on very good judgment. The Bill reads:
Such fences, gates and cattle guards shall be suitable and' sufficient to prevent cattle and other animals from getting on the railway lands.
If it stopped there, it would be all right; but it goes on to say:
And the style, construction, material and dimensions of such cattle guards shall, before the 1st day of April, 1912, be submitted to the board and receive its approval.
There is no reason to expect that the Railway Commission would alter its judgment very much, so that we would be very much as we are at the present time. With that rider in the Bill, I think it is utterly use-
Thomas MacNutt: less, and, therefore, I cannot support it. I think, however, that something should be done in this matter. If the railway companies are not able to protect their tracks properly, I think they should pay for the damage, and there is no doubt they are able to do so. The Intercolonial railway does so, and the railways in the west should do so too. I have known people who could not put in their crops because they lost their horses on the railway tracks. It may be said that they should not let them run at large; but that does not relieve the railway company of responsibility. I have heard of a few cases in which the railway company made some allowance to the settler, but without prejudice. This i's a very important matter, but I do not think this Bill would give any relief.


John Gillanders Turriff: I hope that what has been said to-night will convince the right hon. the Prime Minister that some action is necessary this session, and I am sure that other members of the House, like myself, who have Bills before the House to amend the Railway Act, would be very pleased to waive their rights to have those Bills considered until a consolidated Bill is introduced next session, so as to allow the Bill of my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) to receive the consideration of the government at this session. We have heard to-night of the tremendous loss of money to settlers in these cases. I know of a case in my own constituency in which four horses which were being watered by the owner at his well ran on the railway track and were all killed, and he has never been able to collect one cent from the railway company. The loss practically put him out of business, the horses could not be replaced for $1,000. I think the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) is trying to get up something that will improve the Act, but after the explanations made by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson), I am sure the House will see that if we leave clause 1 as proposed by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), we shall not accomplish his object. If it is provided that the railway company may get the endorsation or approval of the Railway Commission for its cattle guards, it will still manage to escape all liability. What we want to do now is to make the railway company liable for any animals killed on the tracks. If that is done the railway companies will very soon find means of preventing horses and cattle from getting on their tracks. In looking over subsection 4 of section 294 of the Act, it seems to me that it would be made all . right if the following words were omitted from it:
Unless the company establishes that such animal got at large through the negligence or wilful act or omission of the owner or his agent, or of the custodian of such animal or his agent.
If these lines were omitted, responsibility would be placed on the railway companies for every animal that is killed, except the ordinary exceptions such as the farmer leaving his gate open purposely, and there would not be one animal killed where there are ten killed to-day. The railway company should pay the loss, simply because in that case it is the general public that would be paying. If you make the railway company responsible, it will take the necessary means to prevent cattle getting on the track, and there -would be one killed in the future where ten or twenty have been killed in the past.
I hope that the right hon. the First Minister, w'ill see his way clear to make an exception in the case of the Bill of my hon. friend from Portage La Prairie. I am satisfied that if the hon. members for Portage La Prairie, Calgary, Edmonton and Qu'Appelle, were to get together for an hour, they could bring in a Bill that would be satisfactory to every one, and would gu through the House with very little discussion.


Mr. WARNOCK.: As I have some practical experience in this matter, 1 should like to say a few words concerning it. That some amendment should be made to the Railway Act which would give the farmers compensation for horses and cattle killed by railway trains is certainly of great urgency and importance to our western country. 75 per cent of the horses and cattle killed by railways, have been killed after they gained access to the right of way across cattle guards. A number of years ago, when Alberta was much more of a ranching country than it is now, an arrangement was made with the Canadian Pacific railway by which that company agreed to pay for all cattle-they did not include horses-killed or injured by their trains, without any necessity on the part, of the owners to take action against the company. But as soon as the Canadian Pacific railway had fenced in its right of way, that arrangement was withdrawn, and more cattle are being killed in southern Alberta by the railway trains to-day than before the right of way was protected When the right of way was open, Alberta was a great ranching country and cattle were free to roam over the prairie, and the accidents were far less in number. But since the putting up of cattle guards, the cattle frequently stray across these guards. Then, especially at night, they are dazed by the glare of the locomotive headlights, and unable to get off the track before they are struck. Whereas before the railway

tracks were fenced in, the cattle were in
no danger of finding themselves enclosed within the cattle guards, and had a greater stretch of clear space in which to escape. Within the last two years, a farmer in my constituency has lost eight fine horses, killed by the Crowsnest Pass railway, and received no compensation. The Canadian Pacific railway repudiated all liability, and under the law a conviction was almost impossible. There is one thing certain, and that is that the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners of a cattle guard put up by the company will not make it any the more efficient. If the company were compelled to pay the value of all stock killed which had crossed its cattle guards and gained access to the right of way, we should probably find much less loss in that connection than we do at present.


Robert Laird Borden: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 9) to amend the Criminal Code.-Mr. Stevens.
On section 1,
Mr. STEVENS.: There have been some slight amendments in the Bill as at first introduced.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).: Do I understand that it is intended to drop line3 17 to 19, which describe certain particular kinds of lumber at least in eastern Canada that a man could take without being liable.


Mr. DOHERTY.: The effect of the Bill is that shingle bolts are added to the list of the varieties of lumber and the waters of the coast are added to the lakes and rivers now included. The Act applies to the case of timber marked with an owner's mark. The only amendment in that regard is that the mark that constitutes a prima facie case against the person retaining the timber, is a mark under the Canada Timber Act, or a mark under the British Columbia Timber Act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The law clerk has asked me to have this formal clause added:
This Act shall come into foroe sixty days after it has been assented to by the Governor General.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have no objection to this Bill in that it does not go far enough. It provides for any log which is marked with a mark duly registered under the provisions of the Timber Marking Act, or of the statutes of the province of British Columbia. Now in New Brunswick, in practically all of our large rivers, we have what are called log driving companies incorporated by the legislature, to whom is entrusted the driving of logs coming down the river, and the different owners of logs register with the driving company the marks which they claim. Now the mark itself does not give them the prima facie title in the property which the Timber Marking Act does; but it is a fact that this law shows that the log is the property of the company, or of the person claiming the mark. It seems to me that this section might be extended to cover any mark which is well known as the property of the owner.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The law as it now stands attaches this privilege of constituting prima facie evidence of ownership exclusively to the marks that are registered under the Canada Timber Marking Act.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Them why add British *Columbia?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Because there is a law in British Columbia which provides for that registration, and which is more generally used there. Now we are extending it to make it apply to brands registered under the legislation of _ the province, and if there be similar legislation in another province then it would be an analogous case. 3 understand the hon. gentleman to suggest that we should extend that to apply to the mark of every private company. I think this is a provision which is relieving an owner who comes to claim his property of the burden of Droving that which, in common law, falls upon him, and makes the particular designation mark prima facie evidence of his ownership. He would have to begin by proving registration of that mark, he would have to prove that that mark was his mark, which would be proving ownership. The purpose of the registration as it stood without this amendment was to attach to the registered mark, registered under the Dominion law, the privilege of making prima facie case against the man in possession of the log that he knew that mark, and, therefore, knew that he was getting somebody else's property. I think there may be a similar effect making a prima facie case of knowledge on the part of a man if he is in possession of a log bearing a mark which is registered under a law in force in the province. I think we may fairly expect a man to know the registered marks that are registered under a law of his province. But it might not be equally fair to throw upon everybody the knowledge of what is the mark of a driving company.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I appreciate the argument of the Minister of Justice. The fault I have to find with the section is that it either goes too far or not far enough. It creates a special law by the legislation of British Columbia, it creates a special right in some way in the legislation of British Columbia which does not apply to the legislation of other provinces.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. gentleman will say that New Brunswick has a timber marking^ registration Act under which the registration of marks is provided for in a manner to be made public, I would say that we ought to include it. But I do not know of such an Act in New Brunswick, or in any of the other provinces. The hon. member who is promoting this Bill, does know of the existence of such an Act
in British Columbia, and the logs there are habitually marked by that mark which is registered and made public under that law.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is no law in New7 Brunswick providing for the. registration of timber marks, but there is a law providing that the owners of lumber should register their marks with the driving companies, and then they get certain rights in the property. It amounts to the same thing in the end. It seems to me like sectional legislation, which applies to one province and not to all.


Mr. McCREA.: The Minister of Justice has been talking about the law of British Columbia, and the law of New Brunswick. But there is another part of the country, the province of Quebec, where a great quantity of pulpwood is cut and exported, and which is not marked at all. For instance, there is a concern who practically run all their logs on the river, and only a very small percentage are marked with a registered stamp. What will happen to the mill owner if the log is not marked at all ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Merely that these gentlemen will remain under the common law, and they will have to prove th,at these are their logs. This Bill only goes so far as to say that a registered mark will be prima facie evidence of ownership. It is attaching a privilege to the existence of a registered mark. I think it would be an extreme measure to say that any man who is found in possession of a log should be presumed to know that it belongs to somebody else, and would have to say where he got it. A man placed in that position might have had a log that did not have that mark upon it, and inasmuch as it is an unmarked log it would be just as hard to prove that it was his log, as for the man who claimed it to prove that it was his.


Francis N. McCrea: I have had some experience, and I know that there is a general impression amongst the public that if a man finds a log without a mark he has a right to take it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is nothing in this Act justifying that.


Francis N. McCrea: It may probably lead to some trouble in some places.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think my hon. friend would find it very hard if I walked into bis establishment, and he happened to have a large quantity of logs on hand, and I said: Those logs are all mine unless you prove that they are yours. My hon. friend suggests that it would be a good law that would entitle me to walk into his place and say: You prove that all those logs are yours or else I will prosecute you for steal-

ing them. I do not think we could go ns far as that.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
Mr. DOHERTY moved the adjournment of the House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: May I ask what business will be taken up to-morrow?


Charles Joseph Doherty: First the Grain Bill, then other Bills except Nos. 78, 88, 95 and 97; then Supply, beginning with Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.05 a.m. Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 0, 1912.