1914-02-16

SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA CONVENTION.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. HAZEN moved for leave to lay on the table of the House a copy of the convention concluded in London on January 20 last by the International Conference on the Safety of Life at Sea. He said:
In view of the world-wide importance attaching to this convention, it may not be inappropriate that I should, in submitting it to the consideration of hon. gentlemen of this House, make a few observations in relation to the calling of the International Conference, and to the conclusions that have been arrived at. I desire, therefore, with the permission of the House, to summarize as briefly as possible some of the leading features of the convention, and, in so doing, to direct attention to the fact that for a number of years past there has been manifested from time to time a disposition to make the regulations for the safety of
[Stage Direction]
life at sea international and of a higher standard.
Before the calling together of this conference, substantial progress had been made along these lines by several of the principal maritime powers. It was not, however, until the terrible disaster of the Titanic, in April, 1912, that there was a general awakening of the nations to the necessity, in the interests of humanity, of examining with the greatest thoroughness the possibility of strengthening existing measures for the safety of life at sea.
It will be within the recollection of this House that immediately following the loss of the Titanic, inquiries into the cause of the disaster were . undertaken by the authorities of the United States and of Great Britain. The conduct of this investigation was entrusted by Great Britain to Lord Mersey, and so comprehensive was the inquiry and so complete was his report that it arrested the attention of the whole civilized world, and made it abundantly clear that the day had arrived for stocktaking on the part of the nations. The British Government, profoundly impressed by the report of Lord Mersey, hastened to take action, and accordingly issued invitations to the principal foreign maritime nations to come together for the purpose of devising, if possible, means for the greater safety, not only of those who travel by sea, but also of those whose calling is of the sea. The Imperial Government extended invitations to Canada, Australia and New Zealand to attend this conference. The following extract from the invitation will help hon. gentlemen better to understand the objects sought to be attained:
It would be the object ot me conference to endeavour to bring about agreement among the participating states with reference to the conditions necessary for safety to be laid down in the case of passenger steamships, and with reference to other measures in the interests of the safety of maritime passenger traffic. In the event of such agreement being arrived at and embodied in a convention, each signatory state would be responsible for giving legislative and administrative effect to the provisions of that convention and issuing the necessary certificates to its national ships which comply with those provisions. The conference would further deal with the conditions under which certificates so issued should be accepted as valid by the other signatory states.
The invitation of Great Britain immediately received the consideration of the Government, and, having regard to the great importance of the question, to the widespread interest in it and to my desire to help to the greatest possible extent, I
fMr. Hazen.]
recommended its acceptance to my colleagues. This recommendation met the cordial approval of the Government and the necessary steps were taken to have Canada represented at the conference, which met in London on November 12, last.
The conference was attended by plenipotentiaries representing the British Empire, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Germany, France, the United States1, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Bussia and Japan. Having regard to the circumstances that led up to the calling of the conference, it will, I am sure, surprise no one that Lord Mersey, the principal British delegate, should have been unanimously chosen as its chairman.
The first work to engage the attention of the conference was the consideration of a suggestion by the British Government to classify the different subjects that were to be dealt with, as follows:
Life Saving Appliances; Safety of Construction; Safety of Navigation; Wireless Telegraphy; International Certificates.
The suggestion was acted upon, and and committees were appointed to consider and report upon the respective subjects. Every state participating in the work of the conference was represented on each of these committees. After their work was finished, Lord Mersey, speaking of these committees, said:
They were composed of men of great knowledge and experience in regard to matters with which they were to deal, and I venture to think that it would have been impossible to have found anywhere men better fitted for the tasks they undertook.
It may be interesting to recall here the names of the gentlemen who served as chairmen of these committees. They were:
Life Saving Appliances: Sir John Biles, Professor of Naval Architecture, Glasgow University.
Safety of Construction:	Admiral Washington L. Capps, Chief Naval Constuctor for the United States.
Safety of Navigation:	Sir Norman Hill,
President of the Marine Advisory Board.
Wireless Telegraphy:	Mr. E. G. Moggridge, Assistant Secretary, Marine Department, Board of Trade,
International Certificates:	His Excellency, Dr. Van Kerner of the German Foreign Office at Berlin.
The manner in which these gentlemen have done their work, is aptly expressed by Lord Mersey, who said:	' The admirable
work they have severally done is the best proof of their ability.'﻿FEBRUARY 16, 1914
It will probably be considered by many that the most important article of the Convention is the one laying down the principle that there must be accommodation in life boats or their equivalents for all persons on board of any steamship. For the carrying into effect of this principle^ the convention lays down detailed regulations regarding the construction of the different types of boats, their equipment, stowage, strength of davits, number and construction of life buoys and life jackets. It is further provided that as large a number as possible of the boats and rafts may be launched on either side of the ship, so that as few as possible need be launched on the weather side. It is further provided that there must be a minimum number of members of the crew competent to handle the boats. Men will not be considered competent for this purpose who do not hold a certificate of competency issued under the authority of the government of some one of the signatory states. There is, in addition, a provision to the effect that all ships to which the convention applies, must be efficiently and sufficiently manned from the point of view of safety of life at sea.
The carriage of dangerous goods is forbidden, and the signatory states will from time to time issue official warnings as to what goods are dangerous, either singly or in combination, and will prescribe regulations in that connection. The convention in this respect is but approving internationally the policy already adopted and carried out by my department.
The House will remember that quite recently there have occurred several disasters at sea resulting from fire. This question received the most careful consideration, and the convention provides for an organized system of patrol for detecting fires, and regulations are provided requiring adequate means for rapidly extinguishing fire and the organization of the crew for emergencies and for boat and fire drill. It also provided that all ships shall have an adequate system of lighting, to enable passenger? in an emergency readily to find their way to the exits from the interior of the ship In new ships there must be an independent source of lighting fitted in as high a position as practicable, so that in the event of disaster to the main machinery of the ship by flooding, fire or otherwise, passengers and crew may not find themselves exposed to the additional danger that darkness precipitates.
I think it will be admitted by most of those who have had experience in rough weather at sea that escape under such
conditions, from a ship overtaken by disaster, with the aid of the very best lifesaving appliances that human ingenuity can devise, is both difficult and dangerous. The recent case of the Voltarno goes far to support this view, for it will be remembered that tlie great loss of life on that occasion occurred among those who managed to escape into the boats while those who did not venture into the boats but preferred to take chances on the ship were eventually saved. I refer to this in order to emphasize the view that in my judgment, a great, if not the greater factor in the safety of life at sea must 'be found in the construction of the ship. And I have no monopoly of this view, for I find that it is shared very largely by those who have given serious thought to the question and are best qualified to judge. The provisions of the convention respecting the construction of ships in the future are therefore of the utmost interest and importance. These provisions are necessarily technical and complicated and I abstain from any attempt to explain them. They are fully set out in the convention and I doubt not that the judgment of time will be that more than anything else they have contributed to the safety of life at sea. These provisions are to apply to all vessels, the keels of which shall be laid after the date prescribed by the convention. The subdivision of a ship into an adequate number of main water-tight compartments to enable her to remain afloat in the event of damage destroying the integrity of one or more of these compartments is the main purpose of that part of the convention dealing with construction and in this connection I regard it a matter for congratulation that Canadian interests have already taken a forward step in this direction and have to some considerable extent anticipated the findings of the conference. I have reference to the two new Empresses recently placed on the Pacific ocean between British Columbia and the Orient, by the Canadian Pacific railway; to two new steamships about ready for launching for the same company to be placed on the route between Vancouver and Seattle and to the new Alsatian, of the Allan line, whose maiden voyage was made from Liverpool to Halifax only a few days ago. All of these ships are, I am advised, in the matter of construction and water-tight compartments, superior to anything that [DOT]has yet been accomplished in any country.
Before passing from this phase of the-convention, I think it well to direct the:
[Stage Direction]
attention of the House to the observations of Admiral Capps on the work of the committee on construction, of which he was chairman. He said:
It is important to point out that even after the most careful attention to all practicable details of design which increase the safety of a vessel at sea, there still remains the possibility of a serious and even totally destructive accident. Therefore it is imperative that those charged with the management of vessels should never relax their vigilance on the supposition that any vessel is unsinkable. On the contrary", they should strive to add to the safety provided by the vessel Itself, that very great Increase in safety which results from prudent and skilful management and navigation.
I commend these words of Admiral Capps to the earnest consideration of all those in this country who have to do with the management ,and navigation of ships.
. I now come to another very important feature of the convention-that relating to safety of navigation. It will be unnecessary to recall that the Titanic disaster was caused by collision with what must have been an enormous quantity of ice floating southward crossing the track usually followed by all steamships engaged in the North Atlantic trade. It is equally unnecessary that I should call attention to the extreme importance, from the point of view of safety, as well as from other considerations, of keeping trans-Atlantic, steamships advised of the position from day to day of this floating ice. It will be observed that the convention makes provision for the supplying of information to all interested parties as to the location, extent and movement of ice along the North Atlantic steamship routes. The importance of this provision of the convention will be readily appreciated.
It is well known, however, that floating ice does not constitute the only menace to navigation in the North Atlantic. The floating derelict is one of the mariners greatest dreads and there is a general view held that many, if not all, of the disasters of which no information has ever become available have been caused by collision with floating derelicts. The convention provides for a patrol of the North and West Atlantic ocean to locate and destroy all floating derelicts, and there can be no doubt, but that this provision will command universal approval.
The question of ice observation has come to be regarded by many of the nations, more especially by Great Britain, as an important one. Here is a matter upon which Canada has just claims for congratulation. We may properly claim to be the

pioneer in the work of ice observation. The members of this House will, I am sure, be familiar with the results achieved by Professor Barnes of McGill University with the assistance of my department in recent years. These results, embodied in the comprehensive reports by Professor Barnes submitted to this House by my department in recent years, have awakened in other nations a growing interest in this subject to such an extent that the convention provides for an International service to continue the work of ice observation.
Towards the maintenance of these three services of ice patrol, ice observation and destruction of derelicts, 13 of the Signatory States have agreed to contribute as follows:
Per cent.
Austria-Hungary	 2
Belgium	 4
Canada	 2
Denmark	 2
France	 15
Germany	 15
Great Britain	* 30
Italy	 4
Netherlands	 4
Norway	 3
Bussia	 2
Sweden	 2
United States of America * [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] 15
The estimated cost of these services, which will require the exclusive time of two properly built and equipped ships, will be between two hundred thousand and three hundred thousand dollars a year, and, bearing in mind the interest that Canada has in the greater safety of the North Atlantic routes, I venture to hope that the amount that we are called upon to contribute for maintenance will not be considered unreasonable and will be cheerfully approved.
I desire to refer to the fact that the convention does not come into effect until July 1, 1915, and that in the intervening period two ice seasons are to be provided for. I have regarded it as of the utmost importance that, pending the coming into effect of the convention, effective provision should be made for ice patrol and for derelict destruction and on my recommendation the British Government has been advised that Canada would be prepared forthwith to contribute its share for the maintenance of the service. The British Government is at present negotiating with the other interested nations with a view to secure their assent to start these services this season, rather than wait until the coming into effect of the convention. Whilst 1

am not prepared to make a definite statement, I am not without hope that an announcement will be made at an early date to the effect that the service will be established at once.
Of scarcely less importance is that portion of the convention that deals with the question of wireless telegraphy. Here again, it was found that Canada occupies a foremost position among the nations and it will be noted with pleasure, I am sure, that the terms of the convention follow, in the main, the principles laid down in the Act passed by this Parliament two sessions ago. The principal provision is that all ships of the contracting states when engaged upon international voyages, and having on board fifty persons or more must be equipped with wireless telegraphy apparatus. The provisions of the Radio-telegraphic Convention of 1912 respecting classification of ships that require to be equipped with wireless apparatus are adopted in the present convention. Generally speaking, this classification places the fast passenger steamships in the first category. Other steamships intended to carry twenty-five passengers or more, are placed in the second category, and all other vessels required to be equipped in a third category. The convention provides for continuous watches on all vessels as soon as the Government of the state to which the vessel belongs is satisfied that such watch will be useful for the purpose of saving life at sea. After the period provided for in the convention, the following vessels will be required to keep a continuous watch:
1.	Vessels of more than 13 knots carrying 200 or more passengers and which make voyages of more than 500 miles between two consecutive ports;
2.	Vessels in the second category during the time they are more than 500 miles from land;
3.	Other vessels that are required to be fitted with wireless apparatus which are engaged in the transatlantic trade or whose voyages take them more than 1,000 miles from land.
It is provided that the wireless installation must have a range of at least 100 miles. An emergency apparatus, placed in a position of the greatest safety possible, must also be provided unless the main installation is placed in the highest part of the ship. Another important feature of the convention lays down that the master of any ship in distress shall have the right to call to his assistance from amongst the vessels which have answered his appeal for help, the vessel which he thinks can best render assistance.
The question of the mutual recognition of certificates of inspection is one that has for long engaged the attention of some of the nations. Several of them have been able to conclude arrangements whereby the certificate issued by one, would be recognized as valid by the other. In the past, it frequently happened that the ships of one nation were subjected to harrassing delays in the ports of another state, in order to have an inspection made by the latter. These delays, etc., in addition to being harrassing and vexatious, at times resulted in loss of time and consequently additional expense to shipping, without corresponding advantages. It is satisfactory to note that the convention provides a standard of inspection by which, when adhered to by the ships of any of the contracting states, the certificate to that effect shall be accepted by all the other states as of equal value to their own.
Except where otherwise provided by the convention, the merchant ships of each of the states of the high contracting parties which are mechanically propelled, which carry more than twelve passengers and which proceed from a port of one of the said states to a port situated outside that state, or inversely, are subject to the rules laid down in the present convention. Ports situated in the colonies, possessions or protectorates of the high contracting parties are considered to be ports outside the states of the high contracting parties.
Persons who are on board by reason of force majeure or in consequence of the obligation laid upon the master to carry shipwrecked or other persons, are not deemed to be passengers.
In addition to those ships to which the convention immediately applies, there are in each of the countries affected a large number of ships engaged in the coasting and inland trade, and while the convention proper does not apply to them, there need be no doubt but that the provisions laid down by the conference will guide each nation in dealing with those of its ships not subject to the convention.
The convention proper consists of seventy-four articles, to which there are appended regulations to the number of fifty-one. The summary I have endeavoured to place before the House is necessarily inadequate, but I have deemed it advisable to call attention to its more important and outstanding aspects.
I am afraid it is too much to hope that the work of the conference, as embodied in the terms of the convention, will meet the approval of all. There may be disappointments and criticisms. Some may say that the convention does not go far enough, and others that it goes too far. It is not always easy or even possible to attain results that will command the un-
[Stage Direction]
qualified approval of all. Those who have been in close touch with matters of this kind will readily appreciate that international agreements respecting merchant shipping are beset with difficulties. It was only by the earnest desire of the representatives of all the nations, to place the safety of life at sea on the highest possible plane, that all these difficulties were overcome and unanimous conclusions arrived at. I venture to think that no previous international conference has more widely attracted the attention of the nations. It is well known that Their Majesties, the King and Queen, have taken a personal interest in the work of the conference, and their loyal subjects throughout the empire owe them dutiful thanks. It is also well known that His Majesty the German Emperor and the President of the United States took a keen personal interest in the outcome, and all who are interested in the safety of life at sea will be grateful to them for it.
The London Times, referring to the conference after the convention was concluded, said:
Its members are to be congratulated alike upon the spirit that has animated them, and upon the effective skill and good sense with which their efforts have been directed to a fruitful end. The nations have never before brought into the common stock, their accumulated knowledge and experience with a view to establishing general standards of safety and enforcing them by international co-operation. The deliberations of the delegates have produced, not a mere report embodying pious opinions and recommendations, but a complete and definite convention applying to ocean-going passenger ships, which it is proposed that the maritime nations of the world shall adopt and enforce as it stands. When this has been done, as there is every hope it will be, a great step will have been taken towards reducing the risks of ocean travel to a minimum.
The Chronicle of the same date observed:
The success of the International Conference on Saving Life at Sea marks quite an epoch, not only for merchant shipping but for internationalism. Its report, signed yesterday by the plenipotentiaries of twelve sovereign states and three British dominions (which were separately represented) brings, practically, the nations of the world up to a common level in regard to life-saving. The list of signatories does not include one or two powers (we notice Russia and Japan) whose flag flies on ocean-going steamers; but it represents nevertheless so immense a proportion of the world's mercantile marine that we do not believe that they will find it pay to make their ships invidious exceptions. Universality of this kind is too often secured by acquiescence in low standards; the triumph of the conference is that its standard is really a valuable one, and constitutes a conspicuous improvement.

I submit this convention to the House in the full hope and confidence that in the years to come it will go far to prevent a repetition of the sad and all too numerous calamities that we have known in recent years, and in submitting it, Mr. Speaker, I feel I cannot do better than to adopt the language of Lord Mersey, who, in proposing its adoption by the conference, said:
Our work will no doubt be criticised. So far as the criticism originates with interested parties, we can afford to ignore it; and so far as it originates with disinterested parties, our answer must be that we have done our best, that we have done it with anxious care, and as we believe, in the true interests of those who travel by sea. You have been engaged in perfecting a great "work which, I am firmly convinced, will be of lasting benefit to mankind. Much more than this, however, you have perhaps unconsciously, but nevertheless most surely, by the spirit of courtesy and conciliation which has been displayed throughout your deliberations, contributed greatly to the increase of mutual respect and confidence among the nations and thereby to the peace and happiness of the world at large.
I might add that Canada was represented at the conference by the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, assisted by the advice of two technical officers of the department, Mr. Duguid and Mr. McDonnell. It was agreed that this convention should be submitted, on the 16th day of February, to the Parliaments and Legislatures of the different states and nations who were parties to the convention, and it is for that reason I now have the pleasure of laying the convention on the table of the House.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: The conference which sat in London last summer certainly attracted the attention of the world, and I believe the encomiums which have been passed upon its work by my hon. friend are well deserved. The regulations, so far as one could follow them in the synopsis given to the House by my hon. friend, seem to be very well considered and, whether they are adopted or not, one thing is certain: it will work for the solidarity of the nations who are parties to the convention. I would like, however, to have more information than my hon. friend has given us; or, if he has given it,
I have failed to observe it.
I would like to know whether the regulations have been adopted by the twelve nations there represented as a binding treaty or whether they are simply regulations submitted to the nations for voluntary observance. If it is the intention that these rules are not to be made bind-

ing in the form of a treaty is it to be assumed that they should be enforced, as far as they can be enforced, by legislation? 1 observe that my hon. friend stated that in one respect he has taken action, and a very proper action, for controlling the North Atlantic ocean with a view to guarding navigation against derelicts and other difficulties. So far so good; this requires no legislation at all, but an appropriation which, I am sure, Parliament will be ready and anxious to vote. But I would like to know in what form the matter now stands. Are these simply regulations laid down for the voluntary observance of the different nations, or is it intended that they shall be made binding upon all by law?


Mr. HAZEN:: I think the intention is
that the regulations shall be binding on the different nations and countries which are parties to the convention. As to whether any legislative action on the part of this House is necessary, that matter is being considered now between my department and the Department of Justice and I hope to be able to give my right hon. friend a positive answer to-morrow or next day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	[DOT]

[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. J. DEMERS moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 69, to amend the Railway Act. He said:
Mr. Speaker, the object of the Bill I am submitting to the consideration of the House is to further extend the provision of a Bill introduced by me last week, in connection with section 298 of the Railway Act. This Bill, moreover, embodies some special provisions in respect to the prescription of actions arising out of the application of section 298; and lastly, it provides for cases where insurance has been secured on property destroyed by fire through sparks emitted from the smoke-stacks of railway locomotives.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. G. H. PERLEY (for Hon. W. T. White) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 70, respecting Trust Companies. He
said:
The intention of this Bill is to do for trust companies what has already been done by legislation for banks and insurance companies. Some trust companies have been incorporated by letters patent,
but of late years they have nearly all come to Parliament for a special Act and they have asked for different powers. The question has been discussed in each case before the Banking and Commerce Committee, and the consequence is that no two of these acts of incorporation are exactly alike. The object is to secure uniformity in all trust company legislation in order that when they come to the Parliament of Canada for incorporation, they may be incorporated under a short model Bill which will give them all the powers which are intended to be granted under this Act. The Bill follows very much the model Bill which has been in use by the Banking and Commerce Committee during the last year or two. The Bill will be thoroughly explained by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance himself on the second reading. There are provisions for a compulsory audit of trust companies and also for complete returns to be made each year to the Minister of Finance. .
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. HAZEN moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 71, to consolidate and amend the Acts respecting Fisheries and Fishing. He said:
The Bill which I have just introduced,	does not contain any	very
important or drastic changes in the fisheries laws as they exist at the present time. The Fisheries Act has been amended from time to time, and as under section 54 thereof, the Governor General has the power to make regulations which may extend, vary or alter the provisions of the Act in certain respects, many of its provisions are now not effective. The Act is, therefore, in its present form, not very intelligible, and urgently needs consolidation. It has never been revised since it was first enacted in 1867, and several of its clauses, in the light of experience gained, should be somewhat changed.
The Act is considerably shortened by the leaving out of the sections which provided close times for fish, and meshes of nets to be used, all of which have ceased long ago to be law, as they have been superseded by regulations by Order in Council. The following are the only amendments of importance. In section 2 of the Bill, the only change is that the word ' fishery ' is defined. It was not defined in the old law and experience has shown this to be necessary.
[Stage Direction]
Subsection 3 of section 5 is new. It gives the minister the authority to appoint, without going to Council, fishery guardians, from time to time as their services are needed. Such has been, done for many years past, though under the Act it has not been legal. As a matter of fact, for some years, these guardians have been appointed in a way that is not in accordance with the law. Last year, on that fact being called to my attention, an Order in Council was procured, appointing all the fishery guardians which number over seven hundred.
The next change is section 26 of the Bill, which provides that the manager oi proprietor of a lobster cannery shall, on demand, produce his license ' to any person designated by the minister,' as well as to a fishery officer. There are times when officials of the department go down to visit these canneries, and as they are not technically constituted fishery officers they have no right to demand of the manager or proprietor of the lobster cannery the production of his license. This is to cover instances where officers are sent out from headquarters.
Section 29 is probably the most important amendment. It replaces section 44 of the existing Act, which deals with the possession of fish. As the law now stands, before the department can secure a conviction, it is necessary for it to establish as a preliminary fact, that the fish were caught at a time, or in a manner, prohibited by law, thus rendering it necessary for the department to adduce the evidence of some person who has actually seen the fish being caught illegally, before the person possessing the fish can be called upon to show lawful excuse for their possession. If during the close season for lobsters a fisherman comes ashore with a boatload of lobsters, unless we can produce the evidence of some one who saw him illegally taking the lobsters, we cannot proceed against him.
The new -section makes possession during the close season in itself an offence, unless the possessor can show lawful excuse for having such fish in his possession during the close season. This is a condition of different game laws, and it is absolutely necessary to enable us to control difficulties, etc., arising, particularly in the lobster fishery.
In section 31, the only important change is that provision is made for making a canal around a dam through which fish may pass, in place of building a fishway through the dam. The former course is

frequently found the best, depending on local conditions.
Subsection 6 of section 31 is amended by giving the minister power to remove old dams or obstructions to the ascent of fish without being liable to trespass. It sometimes happens that a dam is deserted, but is not opened, and it is difficult to find the possessor, as he may not want to go to any expense in connection with it, or he may be out of the country, but if we remove the dam under the Act as it at present stands, we would be liable for damages.
Section 35 enables the minister to grant authority for the erection of barriers not only for the retaining of fish for fish breeding purposes, but for commercial purposes. There are a number of carp ponds in Ontario now. The carp are held by grating, and are fed corn, etc., but under the Act it is illegal, though it is a most desirable practice.
Section 37 is the same as subsection 7 of section 47 of the existing Act, except that it leaves out the words * other than salmon.' Under the present clause it is illegal to catch -salmon by means of pound-nets or trap-nets, though the nets used all around New Brunswick have for'years been really pounds.
Section 45 is the same as section 54 of the present Act, with the exception that clause (g) is added, which enables the Governor in Council to make regulations prohibiting the sale or export of fish. We have such regulations now in Ontario and British Columbia, but they are really ultra vires.
Section 47 is amended by authorizing a fishery officer or justice of the peace to break open and search any house, etc., in which he has good reason to believe there is illegal fish. At present it is necessary for the officer to go and procure a warrant. While he would be doing so, all traces of illegality would be removed. Indeed, the officers have on different occasions broken into sheds, etc., acting on the assumption that they had the authority to do so.
Section 48 is new. Officers sometimes find masked men and others fishing or preparing to fish. The identity of these men being unknown, they have at present no authority to arrest them. Hence they escape.
Section 50 is new. It is necessary by the fact that fishery officers are sometimes interfered with in the discharge of their duties, and no remedy is provided under the existing Act.
Section 88 is amended toy providing that

a conviction shall not be quashed by certiorari. It frequently happens that on account of want of legal knowledge errors are made in convictions which would enable them to be set aside by certiorari.
Section 91 is amended by making it lawful for any person who thinks himself aggrieved by a conviction or order or dismissal, either the prosecutor or complainant, as well as the defendant, to appeal under the provision of part 15 of the Criminal Code. Under the present section the only appeal is to the minister.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Mr. BORDEN:: My hon.- friend from Kings, Prince Edward Island (Mr. J. <L Hughes) on Thursday last asked me for authority as to certain observations of his to which I had alluded when introducing the Bill respecting representation in the House of Commons. I could not find the reference at first, because it does not seem to have been indexed; but I think my hon. friend will find the remarks in Volume 5 of 'Hansard1 of 1903, at page 10909:



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Futher consideration in Committee of Bill No. 12, respecting the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas. Mr. Blain in the Chair.
On section 2

time for construction extended :
Mr. NESBITT:: What is the amendment?


The CHAIRMAN:: Section 2 as amended reads as follows:
The company may within one year after the passing of this Act commence to construct any of the lines of railway authorized by section 1 of this Act, and may within three years after the passing of this Act, complete any of the said lines of railway, and if within the said periods respectively any such line is not commenced or is not so completed and put in operation the powers of construction conferred upon the company by Parliament shall cease and be null and void as respects so much of that line of railway as then remains uncompleted.


Mr. EMMERSON:: Does that change the time limit?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Yes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: To what extent?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: From two years to one year, and from five years to three years.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That seems to be making fish of one and flesh of another. I was in the Railway Committee at its last meeting, and while reference was made to changes having been made in certain previous Bills, the time in new charters was still fixed at two and five years. While the Railway Committee is not obliged to adopt any one particular rule, and generally decides each case on its merits, it seems to me that it should be governed by precedent, just as this House is.


Mr. MACDONALD:: The Railway Committee came to a different conclusion.


Mr. COCHRANE:: Not on this Bill.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Whatever decision
was arrived at on this Bill, it was reversed by the act of the Railway Committee at its last meeting. I do not know even the name of the Bill and I know nothing whatever about the parties connected with it, but I think it is simple justice that this company should receive the same treatment as was accorded to the company whose Bill was considered and decided upon at the last meeting of the Railway Committee. I beg to move that section 2 stand as it is in the Bill without the amendment.


Francis Cochrane: This Bill passed the
Railway Committee in its present form. Afterwards a vote was taken on certain Bills; and, as my hon. friend says, the time was changed back to two and five years, but not in this Bill.


Mr. McCRANEY:: The minister has
favoured us with a statement as to what took place in the Railway Com4 p.m. mittee. Will he give his views as to the advisability of reducing the time for commencing to construct from two years to one year, as in this Bill, because we are certainly making precedents at present?


Francis Cochrane: What led me to make these changes was the number of petitions, letters and deputations which came from the West, where the people are suffering from lack of railway facilities. On charters that are renewed several times, I do not think it is any hardship to cut down the time for the commencement of the road to one year. A new charter is a different matter. If any of the hon. members were to receive the same petitions, letters and complaints that I receive from year to year, they would try to do some-

thing to hurry along the building of branch lines throughout the West.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Will the change hurry
the building of the road?


Francis Cochrane: I think it will.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am sorry to say I
cannot agree with my hon. friend.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I remember one occasion when the committee reduced the time in the first instance, I think from three years to two. The Change did not have the slightest effect. I care nothing about the matter one way or the other, eexcept that I think we shall accomplish no good; that we shall in no way expedite the construction of the railway as it is intended to be constructed, and the only practical result will be that these companies will come to Parliament for renewals year after year.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Better for the lawyers.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It will be better for
the lawyers, for the parliamentary agents at Ottawa. I have no objection to that. If in one Bill we insist on limiting the time for commencement to one year, we should do it in every Bill. If there were some way of penalizing companies that come here year after year or every two or three years, that might be a spur to induce them to go on with the construction of the road. These railway companies can build only so many miles yearly. They -make their arrangements with that end in view; and- in the case of special branch lines, if you were to limit the time for commencement of construction to six months, it would make no difference; you would not expedite the construction of the road. The companies will commence construction just when they have the means and when conditions will permit, and not one hour -sooner. We are having the form without th-e substance by having this amendment inserted in the Bill; it is a hollow mockery, and will prove so to be. I feel that we should not change now, but if we do Parliament should insist that in every Bill of that nature the company should be restricted, with regard to the commencement of the construction of the road, to a period of one year.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Have subsidies been paid for the construction of any of the branch lines mentioned in this Bill?


Francis Cochrane: Not in connection with this one, I think.


Robert Laird Borden: How long has this company been renewing its charter?


Francis Cochrane: It was first granted
in 1890.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: The circumstances in connection with this matter are very simple. Application is made to Parliament for an amendment of the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Act permitting the company to construct branch lines west of the main line of the Calgary and Edmonton railway into the coal and oil districts. The lines in question are very short, and the committee, by a vote of 22 to 10, concluded that it was not unreasonable that this work should be commenced within a year and completed within three years, if the intentions of the company were at all serious. Parliament has the power to supervise these Acts; either it is going to do it, or it is not going to do it. If the views just urged by the hon. member for Westmorland be correct, then this Parliament is not exercising supervision over railway charters. A line a thousand miles in length would receive just the same attention as a line ten miles in length, which is absurd. The next Bill that was considered by the committee dealt with a line some 750 miles in length, and the committee, in the exercise of its discretion, gave that company five years within which to complete its undertaking, and two years within which to commence it. The General Railway Act makes provisions in that regard, and the General Railway Act was followed. In connection with the renewal of charters, what the "hon. Minister of Railways has just stated was the attitude taken by a number of the members of the committee. Unfortunately, it was not the view which latterly commended itself to the committee, the evidence being that -subsequently a majority of reactionaries were present. Every special friend of the corporations, every foe of common rights, and every solicitor of railway companies in the House, was there, and they were all voting against this provision. There was not a solicitor for the Grand Trunk Pacific railway who was not there and voting against the interests of the common people, so far as I could see. '


Mr. CARVELL:: Farmer'members.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Farmer members like
myself, believing that the powers of the committee had been given to them for the purpose of exercising them, desired that there should be a limitation placed upon the extension of these charters. I do not

pretend to have any special knowledge in this matter, but I do say this: that in western Canada there is a very widespread idea that the time is coming when Parliament should limit the time within which extensions of old lines should be commenced'. There are upon the statute books now a very large number of enactments which have been renewed every two years for the purpose of making the people believe that railways are going to be built where they are not built. The first reason that induces me to try to limit the time of commencement to one year is to prevent the possibility of settlers going into a certain territory on the assumption that a railway is going to be built there, when in fact it is not. If you limit this time to one year, at least the people cannot be misled for two years, as formerly. I could cite to the committee many instances where settlers have gone year after year into these new districts, possibly 40, 50 or 60 miles away from a railway line, being compelled to haul their own grain, who have been led to believe that railways are about to be built there because a charter has been granted. In the United States the obtaining of a railway charter by putting up a certain sum of money usually means business; it means that the railway is going to be built, but that does not apply in this country at all. I therefore say that to limit the time to one year will do much towards preventing the settlers from going into these districts unless there are railway facilities. The hon. member for Westmorland says that by limiting the time of commencement to one year you are going to bring these people to Parliament once every year instead of once every two years. If I read aright the history of legislation in the United States in connection with trusts, monopolies, transportation and public service corporations, the one thing that will bring about a cure of many evils is publicity. No railway company is going to continue to come here year after year and to invite the hostile criticism of the committee to the extension of a charter upon which the moss has grown, unless the company really means to do something. I therefore think that the criticism and the publicity they would receive will have some effect in inducing them to mean business when they come again to this Parliament. I merely ask this question: why should we grant charters to railway companies year after year if we have no reliable evidence that they intend to do that for which they were created? Any
gentleman who has lived in western Canada will agree with me that the West is covered with railway charters, and the time ha3 come to weed them out and to try and insure that charters granted shall be granted for some purpose. If the period of renewal is limited to one year, we may get from the companies some evidence of their willingness to do something where transportation facilities are so greatly in demand.
So far as uniformity in legislation is concerned, I think it would be idle to extend the same sort of treatment to a road a thousand miles long as would be extended to a road ten miles long. This committee should exercise its judgment upon the facts of each individual case. Certainly in the Bill in which the periods were extended, to tw'O years and five, there can be no possible complaint of lack of uniformity, because it is the same company that controls both charters, and if they obtain more favourable consideration from the committee with respect to branch lines three or four hundred miles in length than they obtain with respect to lines 25, 30 or 40 miles in length, so much the better for them. But surely it cannot be said that Parliament should hamper itself in dealing with the first case upon its merits because the committee saw fit on another occasion, where the length of the line in question was more than four times as great, to reverse its position. I hope the Railway Committee will exercise its discretion in each case, regardless of any fixed rule. To lay down the rule suggested by the hon. member for Westmorland- that of naming two years and five as the periods of time, regardless of the length of the line-would be to make a hollow mockery of the proceedings before the committee.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Would my hon.
friend, who comes from the West, relate the circumstances in connection with this Bill which warrant his taking this position?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Had the hon. gentleman been present at the meetings of the committee, he would have heard the statements made there; but it was only when lie was called in suddenly on the second day as the friend of the corporations-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That assertion is
entirely untrue, and I ask my hon. friend to withdraw it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There has never been
a corporation in need of a friend which lacked the support of the hon. member for Pictou.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman has made a statement reflecting on myself which I say is untrue, and which I ask him to withdraw.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have never observed, in any committee I have attended, any lack of support on the part of the hon. member for Pictou of any corporation in need of support, and I am bound to say I cannot withdraw what I have said, because it is a statement of fact.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot withdraw it,
it is a statement of fact.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The statement of
my hon. friend was this:	that I was not
present at the first meeting of the committee, and that if I had not waited to be called upon to vote on the second day, I would have had the information I asked for. I have said that the statement made by him that I was called on the second day to vote is absolutely untrue, and I ask that it be withdrawn.
Mr. BENNETT': I did not say that the hon. gentleman had been called to vote; I did not know that. I assume that is not true.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What do you know?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I only know that the
distress signal was flown to the friends of the corporations to be gathered together on the second day; that is all I know.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I ask my hon. friend to withdraw that statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We all know that, and
the special circumstances which the hon. gentleman from Pictou asked for are these.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I ask my hon. friend to withdraw the imputation which he made upon me, that I was called to attend the second meeting of this committee on account of some special interest in the Bill. I said that statement is untrue.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: My hon. friend from
Calgary will correct that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the statement:


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Do you not know
what you said yourself?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You had better take it back.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not make any
statement that the hon. gentleman was called to vote. I said that the friends of corporations belonging to that committee, owing to the fact that the amendment to the previous Bill had been carried by 22 to 10, had been gathered together. That was a patent fact that he who looked might know, and the other gentlemen of the committee saw it as well.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is not the
statement at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no objection to
my hon. friend being a friend of corporations at all, not the remotest if that is-


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Withdraw it like a man.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have nothing to withdraw. The statement I have made is the fact, and the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) is an exemplification of it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: As far as I am concerned, that insinuation makes no difference, because everybody that knows me knows that it is an absolute falsehood.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I insist on this hon. gentleman, v'hose lifelong record has been that of being a creature of the corporations, coming into this House and insulting men who are here as independent men, and I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to make him withdraw the imputation which he made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I made no imputation.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. gentleman for Calgary has already explained that he did not intend to make any such statement as the hon. member understood.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon.
member for Calgary cannot deny that he stated that if. my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) had not waited until he was called the second day, he would have known the reason wdiy this Bill was amended as it was. Everybody heard that statement. That statement is challenged, and it is for my hon. friend from Calgary now to withdraw that statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not catch the
last observation.


Wilfrid Laurier: I heard my
hon. friend from Calgary say that if the hon. member for Pictou had not waited

until he was caRed the second day, then he would have known what was the reason why this Bill was, I think, amended.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly made an observation of that character, but not the observation that the hon. member for Pictou complains of, that he had been called to vote. I made no observation ol that character.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is what you
meant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said he had been called to that committee, that there was a vote of 22 to 10 on the one day and a vote of 12 to 15 the other way on the other day. These are the facts.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is what I want you to withdraw.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. and learned
friend has no more right to say one is a creature of corporations, as he has done^


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I ask my hon. friend to withdraw that statement without proceeding to make any further remarks on the subject.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. member for Pictou regards the statement that he and others came there to see that similar legislation was not enacted on the second day, as was done on the first, well and good: I withdraw that statement. But I do say that the facts speak for themselves, and they are the records of the committee, and, as I have already said, every solicitor of railway corporations and every friend oi railway corporations was there to see that the vote was as it was.


Wilfrid Laurier: The record will speak for itself.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My motion is that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again on this Bill. I think that an explanation is due, owing to the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett). It happens that, with respect to the Bill considered at the last meeting of the committee, I was present and opposed the motion to have it limited to one year. I do not think that, after a record of some fifteen years in the committee and in this Parliament, it will be charged against me that I have been the friend, in any way, either of the railway corporations or of any corporations. The opposition came from me. I did not even know the Bill, I had
never heard of it and did not know who was interested in or behind the Bill.
I opposed the Bill and made the motion 1 did on principle. I never sent out for anybody to come and support it, I never spoke to anybody and, as far as I know, no effort was made to have anybody come in and support the contention which 1 was putting forth before the committee. Those are the facts; and the vote on that occasion, the attitude which I took, was opposed by the hon. member for Calgary. It so happened that the majority of the committee concurred in the view held by me, and, although I am informed that on a previous occasion a different view was held, I was not there when the vote was taken at the previous meeting. It seems to me that the attitude taken by my hon. friend in imputing motives is not one that is to be commended in this House; much less is it to be commended in the committee. My motion is that the committee rise in order that an opportunity may be had to have the principle thoroughly discussed in the Railway Committee, because we have the acknowledgment that on one day one view was held and the very next day an entirely different view was held. Let that committee have an opportunity of determining the principle upon which it should act as it has always followed a certain principle. If it wants to reverse the policy, well and good; but it is right that the majority of the committee should decide what principle will be followed.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: In so far as the insinuation of the hon. member for Calgary against me is concerned, I treat that with the indifference with which it should be treated. I am responsible here only to my constituents, and I am perfectly willing to be responsible to them. It is for them to determine whether they think I am supporting the corporations or the ordinary people, and it is to their view I have to look and to that of nobody else. I care nothing about the views of the hon. member for Calgary, no more than I do for a June bug in the air.
In the committee I opposed changing the Bill because we have no means of forcing the railway to build either in one year or in two years. It has been our policy to renew these Bills for two years. I saw no reason why the policy should be changed. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) said that the farmers had settled forty or fifty miles from a railway and required it. There are many places

in Ontario where the farmers require railways and have been requiring them for a number of years. My experience indicates that the people in the West are inclined to go a long way off from the railway, and if we have to build a railway to every man's door, simply because he goes there and settles down, it will keep us very busy. We have no way of forcing the railways we charter to build. If the Government were building the railway, then they could say whether they would build in one year or in two years. The hon. member for Calgary says that if you make it only one year the people will only have one year in suspense. Taking it the opposite way, if our giving a charter for two years induces people to go in, I think giving a charter for one year would induce them all the more, because they would think we were in a greater hurry. I had no intention of opposing this Bill in the House Committee because it passed the Railway Committee and I had been defeated on the vote. I was perfectly willing to abide by that vote, because it made no earthly difference to me.


Mr. OLIVER:: I think now is the proper time to discuss the Bill and to decide whether we are going to give an extension or not. When the Bill was up for consideration on Friday night, there was a very slim House, and in view of the statement that was made that the promoters of the Bill would withdraw it if the decision of the committee was adhered to, I expressed the opinion that instead of such a slim House undertaking to deal with the matter, it should be held over until to-day, when there would be a full House and the Bill could be dealt with on the responsibility of the whole House.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: By Rule No. 112, the committee would not have the power to amend this Bill without giving one day's notice. I regard this as an important amendment, and no notice having been given I do not think we can discuss it.


Frank Oliver: Do I understand that the committee cannot deal with the Bill as it is reported ?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Not to-day.


Frank Oliver: If I may be permitted to express my views in regard to it, I would say, first of all, that I cannot understand what the purpose of the Railway Committee is unless it is to take cognizance of the special conditions surrounding each application that comes before it; and while

it is perfectly right and proper that there should be a general rule, it is not the less right and proper that the committee should decide, on the evidence that is brought before it from time to time, as to whether there should be an exception to that rule. In my judgment, this is an application that should be under an exception to the rule. It is an application for the building of a very short line of railway-some 20 or 30 miles. It is in the hands of a company that is perfectly able to build the line, and so far as I can see, the purpose of the charter and the application for two years in which to build, is to enable this company to hold the ground until the expenditure made by other people in the development of oil bearing properties has shown whether there is value in the district or not. In my opinion, if the company wants to build to-day and take a chance on the successful development of these oil-bearing properties, by all means it should be allowed to do so; but, if it merely wants to hold the ground and to wait until other people's money has developed these properties, and then build if it likes, and not build if it does not like, I do not think that is our business here; and I say that we are more than justified in maintaining the decision of the committee to limit the period to one year. This is not an ordinary case of building a railway for the benefit of settlers. One of those branches, I understand, is especially with a view of development of an oil-bearing property in the vicinity, and I say that the people who are boring for oil are certainly entitled to every consideration at our hands. If we cannot give them a railroad within the present season, we should hold the ground open until somebody comes along who will build a railway within a reasonable time. If the company decides to withdraw the Bill, that is their privilege, and there is no objection to their doing so. But with the experience we have had throughout the West, we should not allow this or any other company to hold beyond a reasonable, period, ground that they are not actually engaged in developing. Two years is a reasonable time in some cases, but in my humble judgment one year is a reasonable time in this case. And I am therefore in favour of the Bill as amended.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The statement of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett) that I was not present at the meeting of the committee when this Bill first came before it, is correct. At the second meeting I came in late and found

the Committee were discussing Bill No. 20, and I knew nothing whatever about the discussion the previous day. Discussion was proceeding on the point as to whether or not an absolute rule should be laid down by the committee that hereafter no extension should be granted to any railway company, except on the terms that they must begin operations within a period of one year and complete construction within a period of three years. I ventured then to take the ground, and I venture now to maintain it, that I do not think it is wise for the Railway Committee, or for this House, to lay down, as an absolute rule, from which we should not depart in apy particular case, that no extension should be granted except for that limited period. I pointed out that last year Parliament was called upon to grant assistance to one of the great railway corporations of this country. What an anomaly it would be to grant an extension to a company like that, and then to say to the same company when it comes along: 'Crippled financially as you may be, and in such a position that you have to come to Parliament for an extension of favours, we are going to tie you up absolutely, and will not allow you the right to begin operations except within a period of one year. You lose your corporate rights unless you make a beginning within that time.' I pointed out that to lay down any such rule as that would be an absurdity, and, from a legislative standpoint, ought not to have any recognition or sanction by this House. I further urged that if a particular case arose in which it could be shown to the satisfaction of the Railway Committee, or of this committee, or Parliament, that a company was unnecessarily delaying its operations in dealing with an important project for which it had tire corporate rights, Parliament could then exercise its right of limiting the extension of its powers, or deal with that company in some other way so as to compel the immediate construction of the railway, if it should be constructed. And when I asked for information upon that point, we had the little difficulty which occurred a few moments ago. I obtained from the Minister of Railways the fact that this was not a railway of sufficient importance to warrant a Government subsidy, and I was proceeding to ask the minister the question as to what complaints he had received from the people living in this particular section of the country in regard to the delay that had taken place in the con-51
struction of this road. This proposition, being an Act respecting the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company, is an Act which relates to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, as it now owns the former road. The committee below may have had information before them; I did not have the opportunity of appearing there, and therefore I cannot speak, but here in this committee I think one has a right to know as to whether or not the facts were such as would lead the members of this committee to regard this as an exceptional case-a case in which the time should be limited within which construction must begin. Has my hon. friend the Minister of Railways any documents, data or complaints from the people who are interested in the particular tract of country affected, which warrant him in saying that Parliament will be acting wisely in attaching this special limitation to this particular Bill? If he has, then I say the committee below and the committee here would be acting properly in dealing with it, but if he has no such information, and if the case is one which is to appear within the general category of Bill's coming here without any special representations being made, then this committee should consider whether we are going to lay down what is going to be known as a general rule in future.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I think it would be difficult to lay down an absolute rule from which you could not depart. The Railway Act now provides that they must commence in two years and complete in five. Of course, the Railway Act is to be consolidated and we may have some change, but that does not mean at all that you cannot deviate from that in a special Act such as this is. I think it is incumbent upon those who wish a deviation to give the reason and prove their case as to why there should be a departure from the Railway Act. If that is done I think there is no trouble in having the wishes of those who are so anxious for railway construction carried out. I have wondered at the limiting of the time allowed a railway company to construct a railway. It may be an incentive and a help. But there is a difference in dealing with some large, strong company and dealing with some adventurer in railway construction. You cannot discuss the two situations from the same angle, or the same point of view. If it is only a comparatively short line and if the Canadian Pacific railway means business it can start building it this year as well as next year. If, on the other



hand, a company was being organized to build a railway in a new section of country and the company was not in a position to finance the enterprise and it required some time to look around, I can see a reason why it should be allowed a little longer time. Or, if it were a long line that was to be constructed it might be necessary that greater consideration should be given to the project. But if the committee, after full consideration, has decided that it is such a short line and the Canadian Pacific railway is such a strong company that it can build the line at once if it desires to do so, I see no reason why an exception should not be made in this case. What I wanted to point out was that the Railway Act says that the work must be done in two years and completed in five years but that any special provision can be made in reference to any special case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I beg to correct
the hon. gentleman in reference to the fifteen per cent provision; this is only a branch line and not a line to which the main provision of the Act would apply.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: I only arrived
in'the Railway Committtee at the end of the time when this particular Bill was under discussion, and I heard so little of the discussion that I did not think it wise to vote. I have very strong views up.on the wisdom or the course of procedure that is recommended in this amendment. I have asked in the Railway Committee what practical advantage will result from a departure from what has been the usual custom of the Railway Committee. I would like to urge that question here. We are all anxious for railroad building and no one more so than the railway companies themselves. It is their business to build railways. They succeed if they build them properly and well and they fail if they do not. We are all anxious for railway building; there is no difference of opinion in this House, or in Canada, on that subject. The question comes to be one of method and of precedent. I got no answer in the Railway Committee and since I have been listening to this debate I have heard no answer to the question as to what practical advantage will come from tying thfs particular line down to building in one year or not building. What practical advantage will come to anyone if this amendment carries?
It appears to me that the effect of carrying the amendment, in view of the attitude that is taken by this particular company, will be the prevention of railway building because the company are going

to wdthdraw the Bill altogether. As far as this particular line goes there will be no very great disadvantage. We will stop railway building as far as that company is concerned unless any one in this committee can tell us that sqme other company will immediately come forward and apply for a charter and take up the building of this road. But, suppose t'he Bill is not withdrawn, suppose the company had not threatened to withdraw the Bill and we carry this' amendment, what then, as a matter of practical experience, Mr. Chairman, happens? The railway comes back and it is a case of granting an extension for two years. This and every other railway company can come back again and again to the Railway Committee, and the reason is a very simple one. This is only one of a hundred cases that come before the Railway Committee of Parliament. Suppose we added a provision here to compel the railway to build this particular line within twelve months, what would be the result? We would help those who are interested in this particular branch, we would help those who are interested in speculation in oil fields and as any given railway can only get over so much ground in a given time, it follows that we would hurt somebody else. We would help this particular territory, and hurt the homesteaders who perhaps have been waiting much longer in another district for another railway, who have been waiting patiently and who cannot get a railway as the result of compulsion supposing we could apply compulsion. I have the utmost sympathy for the homesteaders who have gone into certain districts and I ought to have. I know their life. I have been living twelve years in Canada and I have never been nearer to a railway than fifteen miles. Yet, I recognize the obstacles that stand in the way of railway development. I hope I am big enough and broad enough, as a citizen of this big land, to recognize that while the homesteaders have their difficulties, the railway companies and capitalists have their difficulties too. I believe in fairness and justice to every class of the community. I, for one, have not heard anything here, or in the Railway Committee, to alter my attitude upon this subject and my attitude would be one of supporting what has beep found in the years immediately behind us to have been, on the whole, the wisest course and the one which has been invariably followed, irrespective of party, by the Railway Committee.


Robert Laird Borden: As a matter of fact, this motion is not debatable. I did not raise any question about it because some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House desired to make some personal explanation. But it is really not debatable.
Amendment negatived; yeas, 17; nays, 53; and section agreed to.
On section 2-time for construction extended;


Mr. NEELY:: That clause has the amendment as it came from the committee?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Yes.


David Bradley Neely: I am going to take this
particular opportunity-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have already declared the clause carried, but I do not wish to cut off discussion.
Mr. NEELY; You just called the clause, I .understand, and I thought a moment would be given for its consideration. I was not in the committee when this Bill was under consideration, but I understand the amendment changes the wording from two years ' in the first line to ' one year ' and that five years ' in the third line is changed to 'three years.' Is that the wording of the amendment?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Yes.


David Bradley Neely: As I understand it, the
branch lines to be authorized by this Bill, are, according to the side-note in the Bill, new lines. I want to tell this committee that if this clause 2 is to pass in its present form, some of us who have voted that the committee rise and report progress, are going to ask, not once but many times, at future sittings of the Railway Committee, that similar treatment be accorded other Bills which come before that committee. We are in this peculiar condition in the Railway Committee; that when we want the responsible minister to give us some idea as to what the policy of the Government, or his own policy is, with reference to the renewal of charters as to time extension, we never can get from that hon. gentleman a frank statement as to whether or not he has a policy in this regard. There may be some reason why special restrictions in the matter of time limits should be added to. charters which have been held by companies for a great number of years. For example, at present the committee is considering an extension of time to the Manitoba and North Western, a charter for which has been held by the present com-61*
pany for at least twenty years. But, here is the case of a number of branch lines, which according to the Bill itself are new lines, now being authorized, and the Minister of Railways sits in his seat and listens to the discussion wthout giving this committee any shadow of a reason why he thinks special treatment should be meted out to this particular charter, as compared with any other charter for new lines of railway. Will the Minister of Railways tell us why he thinks that these new lines, which will be authorized by this Bill if it passes, should be restricted to one year and three years, when the other new lines hitherto authorized by Parliament have been given two years and five years respectively. *
. I am not speaking in the interests of any railroad company; I have not one bit of sentiment of any sort or description towards any railroad company; but I do object to the member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) coming before this committee and, for the sake of some local influence or benefit he may derive from the amendment which he proposes to this particular clause, undertaking to introduce a principle into railway legislation which has hitherto not been recognized by the Railway Committee or by this House, and which I feel sure in this case is an absolute injustice to those asking for the charter. It looks to me very much like a case of obtaining some cheap notoriety, and' some very cheap notoriety at that, by somebody, if we are going to make a special case of this particular Bill, without there being given to the committee more definite reasons why these new lines of railway should be treated in a manner absolutely contrary to the practice that has prevailed for a number of years in this House and in the Railway Committee. I am not going to be posted by the member for Calgary, or by any other member of this House, as having voted to shorten the time, as having voted against the interests of the people who need railways in the West, because I have voted against the amendment placed in the original Bill by the Railway Committee at one of its sittings some days ago. I think it is only fair that* we should have some statement from the Minister of Railways as to why he thinks special treatment ought to be meted out to this particular Bill.
I can tell the Minister of Railways that while this Bill belongs to a railroad company which does its own financing, there is another railroad company that gets

renewals of charters, and which does not finance its own lines on its own responsibility. I will instance the case of a railroad in my own constituency, or rather a railroad charter in my own constituency, part of which line has been built, and the great part of which has not been built, although the Dominion Government guaranteed the bonds of that railway and .financed the road. Notwithstanding that this Government financed the road by guaranteeing the bonds, that railroad company can come here session after session and get all the renewals it likes and all the time conditions it wants to. I refer to the Thunder Hill extension of the Canadian Northern. In the summer of 1911 I had a definite statement from the President of the Canadian Northern that they proposed to proceed immediately with the construction of that road; in fact that they were letting a contract that year for the carrying out of the work. And yet, so far as I know, not a single tap of work has been done there from the summer of 1911 to the present time. The Minister of Railways-we know what he is charged with outside of the House; we know where people say his sympathies are-the Minister of Railways can sit complacently in the Railway Committee and he can allow these charters to be renewed, without any qualms of conscience apparently, and without placing any special restrictions upon them. But, to suit his friend the member for Calgary, apparently he can sit complacently by here just as well, and, with respect to this Bill chartering new lines, he can see violated every rule and every principle that for years past has governed railroad legislation in the Railway Committee and in this House, without giving the House any sufficient explanation for such complacency.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: As this Bill stands in my name, I wish to tell the committee why I voted as I did. In the Railway Committee I was in favour of having the time for commencement reduced to one year. On consulting with the promoters afterwards, I was informed that if that clause went through this committee'the company would withdraw the Bill and would not build the railway at all. In view of the fact that the settlers in that country are very anxious for railway facilities, I am in hopes that this committee will allow this Bill to stand until some more light is thrown on the subject and the policy of the department more clearly outlined than it is at present. I
iMr. Neely.]
therefore beg to move that this Bill -be allowed to stand.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Further consideration in Committee of Bill No. 13, to incorporate the Central Western Canada Railway Company.-Mr. W. H. Sharpe. Mr. Blain in the Chair.
On section 3-capital stock:
Edward Walter Nesbitt: Was not that changed?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The capital stock of
the company shall be $7,000,000, instead of $5,000,000.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 10-telegraphs and
5 p.m. telephones:


Mr. BUCHANAN:: In the Railway Committee, the matter was brought to the attention of the Minister of Railways and of the Chairman as to the powers given to this railway to operate a commercial telephone line. I am advised that in the past in Bills of this character, such powers have not been granted to railroads. In the province of Alberta we have a government-owned telephone system operating throughout the province, and operating in sections where there are no railroads. We are not anxious that any railroad or other company shall be given federal powers to operate a commercial telephone line. If the powers were limited simply to the use of the telephone service by the railroad on its own system for its own purposes, the matter would be different; but as I understand it, this company are asking for powers to operate a telephone system along their line of railroad and also to do a commercial business. In our provincial charters no powers of this character are granted. The Prime Minister of the province of Alberta informs me that in the past such powers have not been given to railroads. The explanation given in the committee the other day was not quite clear to me, and I would be glad if the minister would make a statement in regard to this clause.


Francis Cochrane: I received a letter from the Prime Minister, Mr. Sifton, on this very point, and I had the matter looked into. I find that every year powers are granted similar to those in this clause.
On section 8-railway authorized:


Frank Oliver: When this Bill was up in the Railway Committee on Friday, it was

pointed out, by mention of the principal points, that the route of 'the proposed railroad between Winnipeg and Edmonton, closely paralleled the Canadian Pacific railway, which also parallels the Grand Trunk railway and the Canadian Northern railway. The question was raised as to what "the policy of the Government was in such a case. Some statement was made to the effect that the 'minister in committee had stated that, should the railway company undertake to build and come to him for approval of its plans, he would not approve of plans that would allow the line to pass within some certain distance of the lines already existing, except where it passed through important points. I am sure the committee would be glad if the minister would make a statement as to the policy of the Government with regard to that rather important matter.


Francis Cochrane: I do not think I made a statement in the committee, but the solicitor acting on behalf of this company made that statement, that the policy of the department in approving of locations was that, except at central points where the railways had to come in, they would have to keep twenty 'miles apart. I think I explained to the House a year ago that I had adopted a policy that on branch lines-of course this may be considered a trunk line-we would insist on their being twenty miles apart. If this is considered as a trunk line, then of course it would be dealt with in the same manner as the three great transcontinental roads, that is, it would have the right to the shortest route. If it is considered as a branch line, it would come under the branch line policy.


Frank Oliver: I merely want to know
what the policy of the Government is. The hon. minister quotes what a solicitor of the railway company has said. What we are anxious to have is a statement of the Government treating this railway as a trunk line, which it is.


Francis Cochrane: If it is a trunk line,
the company will get the same consideration as the others and will not be dealt with under our policy as to branch lines.


Frank Oliver: That is, they would be
entitled to the shortest line between important points ?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Frank Oliver: In other words, they
might parallel already existing lines?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Frank Oliver: No doubt circumstances
sometimes occur that render it right and proper that railway lines should parallel each other, but I think that the Government would be well advised to take into consideration the conditions of the western country before being committed to the declaration as my hon. friend has made it. There are three trunk lines already in existence between Winnipeg and Edmonton at varying distances from each other. At Saskatoon the three are within a distance of sixteen miles.
For a very large part of the distance two, and in some cases three of the lines are comparatively close together. The building of a fourth line along that route means a vast expenditure of capital, and such a line, in order to compete, would have to be built according to the very highest standard or it would not compete at all. It is a matter of very great doubt whether the Government is wise in committing itself to this policy, when we consider the vast areas in the prairie provinces that still remain absolutely without railway communication, where people are 70, 80 or 90 miles from a railroad. Capital must be found to give the railway accommodation that will benefit these settlers, and render possible the development of the country. Where there is such a great need for 'capital for railroad construction, in order that present settlers may be accommodated and the proper development of the country obtained, I say that the Government should be very cautious about sanctioning a project of unnecessary duplication. I am strongly in favour of railroad competition. As I have pointed out, throughout a great part of the distance between Winnipeg and Edmonton three railways are now in active competition. It seems to me that these ought to afford measurably sufficient accommodation for that section of the country, and that those sections which are suffering serious hardships because of the lack of railway communication, and where the country at large is subject to the direct loss resulting from the lack of development that would accrue from railroad construction, should be given consideration. It seems to me to be a doubtful policy on the part of the Government to sanction this fourth line simply as a competing line when competition already exists, and when there is so much need for railway communication in other directions.


David Bradley Neely: I suppose it is useless to try to get the minister to say anything further on this subject. This Bill was held over, I understand, for consideration in the presence of the minister, and in order that he might have an opportunity of giving his opinion on certain matters which have just been brought before the committee by the hon. member for Edmonton. The minister tells us that the solicitor for this company stated what the policy of the company would be. That is surely very useful information; the solicitor surely speaks with a great deal of authority. When he comes before the Railway Committee he may tell the members of the committee practically anything that comes into his head. He is not responsible for carrying the project out, and the company he represents are not bound by any assertions he may make. Here is a line that practically parallels the present line of the Canadian Pacific railway; that is, the Manitoba and North Western line, and its extension. If this company goes ahead and finances this proposition, and if they come down here to have their plans approved by the minister, will he sanction plans permitting the construction of a road paralleling, within half a mile or a mile, the Canadian Pacific railway, from Winnipeg right through to Edmonton, a distance of over 800 miles, when there is such an enormous demand for railroad communication and transportation facilities in many other portions of western Canada? That is what we want to know; I wish the minister would talk and tell us what his policy is. Never having visited Egypt, I have not had the privilege of looking at the Sphynx, which, it is said, although made of stone, looks very wise. The minister may have a splendid policy in his mind, but we would like to know whether his seeming wisdom is real, or whether it is of a character similar to that massive work of art which may be found in that ancient country known as Egypt. If the minister will state frankly whether he will or not permit the construction of this line paralleling the Canadian Pacific railway from Winnipeg to Edmonton, then we will know whether the country is to be served by this enormous expenditure of capital. We want competition, but not the kind of competition that spells ruin to the railways and no benefit to the people. We want competition that will mean transportation facilities for the people who have not the 
benefit of such facilities now. Does the minister propose 'to put that policy into effect, or does he not?


Mr. BRADBURY:: I cannot help observing the change that has come over the hon. gentlemen of the Opposition during the last two or three years. It is only two or three years since hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House had a good deal more to do with the legislation that passes through the House than they have at the present time. I have listened for hours in the Railway Committee, and sometimes in the House, to some of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken on the other side against granting this charter. These gentlemen urged at that time free trade in charters-let everybody come along and get a charter. But a change has come over the attitude taken by hon. gentlemen in thi3 respect-I do not know just- why. The hon. member who has just taken his seat spoke about the need of competition. The gentlemen asking for this charter are not, I understand, one of the great corporations that already have a line right through to Edmonton, and if the charter were granted the hon. gentleman might naturally expect that there would. be some competition. I cannot see any good reason why 'a Bill of this kind should not be passed by the committee, and why these men should not be given a chance to build this road if they want to. Four or five years ago the policy urged very strongly by hon. gentlemen opposite was that any man who asked for a charter should be given one. These people are not asking for a subsidy.


David Bradley Neely: We are not opposing this
charter.


George Henry Bradbury: I understood from
the remarks of the hon. gentleman that he was opposing it. Bo far as paralleling the lines is concerned, I am not sure that hon. gentlemen opposite have always adhered very strictly to the doctrines which they now put forward. In connection with-the construction of the Transcontinental, it was contended very strongly by hon. gentlemen now on this side of the House that the route on the Transcontinental west of Winnipeg was not going to serve the country in the manner which was intended when the charter was first brought before this House. It was intended to run farther north, but it was brought down south, going around the bottom of lake Manitoba, and, as every-



l'Jll

[Stage Direction]
body knows, it parallels the Canadian Pacific railway and the Canadian Northern railway. I believe that the gentlemen who are asking for this charter are asking for it in good faith. There is a Large territory lying north of those lines not now served by any railway.
Mr. SCHAFFNER:: Let them go north.


George Henry Bradbury: They could go north
and may go north, but I cannot see any good reason for the opposition given to the Bill. I think the Bill should go through and that we should give these gentlemen an opportunity of constructing this road if they want to.


Francis Cochrane: I thought I had made myself clear to the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). I said that if this _ was a trunk line I should not interfere, that they would be entitled, like all trunk lines, to get the shortest and best line they could; but that if it was a branch line, 1 had laid down a policy in my department a year ago that I would not approve of lines within twenty miles of one another. I have heard that this is an extension of a line that is being built into the Peace river now and the promoters want to get an outlet. That I am not sure of, it is all hearsay. As to my not saying much, 1 often think if a lot of people said less they would get on better.
_>Ir. OLIVER:	It makes very little difference whether or not this charter, or in fact almost any other charter, is granted if no subsidy or Government assistance goes with it. Free trade in charters is practically all right, although I do not see why there is a Railway Committee at all, or why the time of this House is taken up in discussing railway charters, if there is to be absolute free trade in them. However, it makes no difference whether charters such as this are granted by Parliament, the question is as to the granting of aid. It is not the approval of plans upon which we - are so anxious to have the Government's policy.


Francis Cochrane: No subsidy is being
asked for.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend knows
perfectly well that this road will not be built without a Government subsidy or assistance of some kind.


Francis Cochrane: That will be time
enough to discuss it.


Frank Oliver: I think we are entitled
to know now what the policy of the Government is or will be in regard to a charter absolutely paralleling three other lines.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: How far apart will the two lines be?


Frank Oliver: Touching Yorkton and
Saskatoon 1#ie road, if it is at all a straight one, must necessarily parallel the Canadian Pacific railway within a very few miles in part of its course and in many places it must parallel the Grand Trunk or the Canadian Northern railway. It would not parallel the three within a few miles but throughout its course it must parallel two of them. I think it would be fair and right that the Government should declare here and now whether their policy is and will be to grant assistance to a new line built under such conditions. I ask this for the reasons I placed before the House a few minutes ago-the urgent requirements in many sections of the country which are at present without railroad communication. I think that makes it reasonable that we should ask for an announcement of the policy of the Government in regard to this road. I said that I knew a settlement 90 miles from the railroad. I was very far within the mark. I have in mind a settlement now of sixteen townships in which nearly every acre is under homestead or bounty warrant entries. It is 250 miles from the nearest possible railway point. That is at Grand Prairie, Peace river.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE:: There are roads
building in there at the present time.


Frank Oliver: There is a road being
built in there, but it is being built at such a rate that it will be a number of years before it gets there and it is not being built on any aid or assistance from this Parliament, it is being built on provincial aid. There is not only this Grand Prairie settlement in the Peace river country but there are other settled sections of the Peace river that are from 230 to 350 miles from railroads. These people have gone in there expecting railroad communication. It is true that the provincial government is trying to meet the case, but it seems to me to be a duty which lies On the Dominion Government to meet the case rather than the provincial; and when demands are being made or are in prospect for aid for 800 miles of line that will absolutely parallel three other lines, we would like to know what the position of the Government is in regard to aiding such a line when aid is so

greatly needed for other lines in other sections of the country where there is not only no competition but no railroad communication at all.


Francis Cochrane: I do not think any
fixed policy should be laid down as to what roads should get aid and what should not. The facts of the whole case shqpld be put before the Government and before the House even, before we could lay down any rule. I endorse what the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) said on the other Bill, that applications of this kind should be treated on their merits as they come. From the case the hon. member makes out of the line building in there now, I think that is a road that should be aided. I believe in opening and developing the country, and I would say that if aid is being given to any road this seems one that should receive assistance. I do not know whether this road is going to be a trunk line or not. If it was up for approval of plans I would know something about it, 1 could ask questions; but the promoters are not here, and I do not want to prejudge their case.	[DOT]
On the preamble:


Frank Oliver: Does section 10 authorize the company to establish telephone lines and do a telephone business throughout, the country at large, or can the company build only along the line of railway? There can be no objection to the company doing this latter.


Francis Cochrane: The clause has always been inserted. It is pretty clear:
The company may, subject to the provisions of the Railway Act, construct and operate telegraph and telephone lines upon its railway and establish offices for and undertake the transmission of messages for the public and collect tolls therefor, etc.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to restrict the operation to the railway line.


George Perry Graham: I think it is pretty well covered by the first two lines, ' subject to the Railway Act.' I would just like to say a word in reference to free trade in charters. It might be that what we call free trade in charters was all right a few years ago, but is not all right now. We cannot lay down an absolute rule for all time. Where there are no transportation facilities, I have always maintained that any company applying for a charter should have it, but it is a little different where there are already several lines of railway. Too many lines of railway are almost as serious as not having enough.
(Mr. Oliver.]
Where capital is locked up in three or four lines covering the same territory, I am not sure that competition is very keen. Either the railways must lose money, or their patrons are helping to pay dividends on three railways instead of on one. So long as the Board of Railway Commissioners has the right to control rates, that largely overcomes the objection to no competition, but there is this other point: in discussing the decision as to rates in the West, hon. members will have noticed in the press certain references to the effect that if rates were reduced beyond a certain point, some companies might be .able to stand it, and other companies might not be able to stand it. You might give a charter to a weak company to build 700 to 800 miles of railway where already three lines are operating, and then the argument could be put up a little later on, you cannot reduce the freight rates because while the three large companies can stand it, the poor company cannot.


Francis Cochrane: Would you refuse
them a charter?


George Perry Graham: I do not know that I would. I would put them far enough apart. It is a difficult question to disduss, and it is hard to lay down a rule from which you cannot deviate. I see no reason why this company should not receive its charter if it is a sufficient distance away from the other line to get enough traffic to support it, but if it go very close to the other lines it is questionable whether it ought to be allowed to lock up that much more money. Instead of being a factor in reducing rates, it might be an argument for keeping rates up.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 63, respecting the Canadian Northern Ontario Company.-Mr. Currie.
Bill No. 64, respecting the London and Port Stanley Railway Company.-Mr. Beattie.

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

*Mr. LEMIEUX:: How many Orientals are actually employed under ground in the mines of the Canadian Collieries, British Columbia?


Mr. CROTHERS:: No information later than May, 1913, when the number was reported at 432.


PICTOU PUBLIC BUILDING.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Were any tenders called for the painting of the public building at Pictou, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, who were the tenderers, and the
amount of each tender?	v
3.	What was the total cost of the work?


Mr. ROGERS:: Mr. John Brown was asked to quote a price to do "the work, and he agreed to accept $650, which was paid. The clerk of works having certified that the price was fair and just.


EXPENDITURE AT SKINNER'S COVE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Plow much money was spent by the Department of Public Works at Skinner's Cove, Pictou county, in the year 1913?
2.	Who was the foreman of the work?


Robert Rogers: $620 paid to Skinner
Brothers for right of way and damages; no expenditure made, during the year, on repairs.


PORT ARTHUR GOVERNMENT ELEVATOR.
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Is the Government elevator at Port Arthur, Ontario, insured?
2.	If so, in what amounts and companies, and in what proportions, as between fire and employers' liability?
3.	Through whom was the said insurance placed, and what amount was paid for commission?
4.	Did the Government try to place the said insurance through any of the insurance agencies at Port Arthur? If not, why not?


Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	No, though insurance against fire on grain stored therein and employers' liability insurance have been taken out.
2.	Grain fire insurance has been taken out in the following companies and placed through the firms stated: The Sun Insurance, $150,000; Liverpool-Manitoba, $250,000; Hartford Fire Insurance, $80,000; Fidelity-Phoenix, $230,000; Atlas Insurance, $190,000; Western Assurance, $250,000; British America, $100,000; placed through Young & Lillie, Fort William, Ont. Royal Exchange Assurance, $100,000, placed through.R. Lawson & Co., Winnipeg, Man. Home Assurance, $100,000; Norwich-Union Insurance, $100,000; placed through Ray, Street & Co., Port Arthur, Ont. Protector Underwriters, $50,000, placed through W. H. Laverty, Fort William, Ont.
The following employers' liability has been taken out:	London Guarantee and
Accident Company, placed through Port Arthur Insurance and Vessel Agency.
Maximum liability in case of any one person of $10,000 and the basis of the insurance is an estimated pay roll of $25,000 per annum.
3.	Answered by No. 2; though with regard to commission the department has no information. That is a matter entirely between the insurance company and the-agent who places the risk.
4.	Distribution of insurance is shown in No. 2.


ST. ROMUALD POST OFFICE.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Has the Government been offered the sale of one or several immovables intended for the erection of a post office at St. Romuald, county of Levis?
2.	If so, what are the names of the parties who have offered such immovables for sale?
3. In what division of St. Romuald are situated these immovables so offered, and what are the prices asked for them?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to erect a post office at St. Romuald?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.	.
2.	First by L. G. Gravel; second by G.. A. Marois; third by Henri Legueux.
3.	All on Main street near the centre of the town. First offered for $3,500; second for $4,500, north of the town hall; third for $11,500 with building erected thereon.
4.	Under consideration.


AID TO AGRICULTURE.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	Is the Minister of Agriculture aware of certain statements which the newspaper Le Devoir mentions in its issue of the 5th of February, 1914, as having been made by the Hon. Mr. Caron, Minister of Agriculture in the Quebec Government at a sitting of that Legislature, and which is as follows:
'If the minister does not go too far, a great many of the dairy herds are affected with tuberculosis, and it is the same with half of the pork we eat. That is what Mr. Caron has stated twice. And he, Mr. Caron, has even added that it would not surprise him sliouid the medical corps come to the conclusion that the cause of tuberculosis affecting human beings is mostly to be found there.
Mr. Caron holds the federal Government responsible for that because it refused to appropriate a part of the special grant intended for agricultural purposes to inspecting the herds. Ottawa told us, says the minister, that it was so important a matter that it would itself deal with it. That delighted me, further said Mr. Caron but Ottawa has done nothing so far'.
That most serious statement was uttered during a debate on the federal subsidy towards agriculture. The minister unceasingly complains that the conditions of the grant prevent him from following a definite programme; that

there is a discrimination between the way of dealing with the province of Quebec and the others, because it has not been, at first, consulted, and in the second place, because a guardian is imposed upon it to supervise the spending of the moneys in question. Is it because it is ruled by a Liberal Government or because its population is French-Canadian, asks Mr. Caron.
Mr. Caron protests anew against the way the province of Quebec is dealt with. It is an insult. Mr. Burrell is well meaning, but he cannot be so well informed as are the local people, and that may be the reason why he forbids us to do one year what he has allowed the preceding year. For instance, he forbade us this year to give any money towards the cultivation of clover, and we had, consequently, to stop, although it is a good policy.
2.	Has the federal Minister of Agriculture
sent to the other provincial Ministers of Agriculture a list mentioning special ways according to which the money had to be spent, as instruction is said to have been given to that effect to the provincial Minister of Agriculture of Quebec?	>
3.	If so, at what dates have such instructions been forwarded to the provincial Ministers of Agriculture and what are the items and the amounts of money appropriated to each, any of those ministers was authorized to spend in the manner prescribed?
4.	What total amount has each of the prov-vinces received from that special grant voted by Parliament, and called 'Aid to Agriculture'?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	The_ minister's attention has been *directed to the statements said to have been made by the Hon. Mr. Caron, although the minister has not seen any official report of such utterances. Assuming that the report of these statements is substantially correct, the minister desires to point out that the Agricultural Aid Act of 1912 authorized expenditure along all lines of agricultural work, whereas by the terms of the Agricultural Instruction Act of 1913 the authorization was limited to agricultural education work.
The expenditure of moneys for the inspection of cattle, for the purpose of eradicating bovine tuberculosis would not, in the minister's opinion, come within the meaning of the Act. The minister observes that, while the federal Department of Agriculture has administered the ' Animal Contagious Diseases Act ', it has never undertaken to inspect all the herds of Canada for bovine tuberculosis and it is within the power of any province to deal with this disease in the herds of such province by inspection, destruction of infected animals, and compensation therefor. Action of this kind has been taken by the province of British Columbia and a similar line of action is open to every province, including the province of Quebec.
	'
The minister further observes that in the programme of expenditure under the Agricultural Instruction Act all provinces have been dealt with on the same basis, the Quebec Government in common with the other provincial governments being fully consulted as to the lines of expenditure within the meaning of the Act, and Mr. Chapais, whose knowledge of French and long experience of agricultural conditions of Quebec specially fitted him for the office, was appointed under section 6 of the Act, to assist in the work of carrying out its provisions.
2.	The federal Minister of Agriculture did not send to provincial Ministers of Agriculture a list containing' special ways according to which the moneys had to be spent, but on the 2nd June, 1913, Dr. C. C. James, Commissioner of Agriculture, wrote to all the provincial Ministers of Agriculture mentioning general lines on which they might frame their proposals for expenditure under the provisions of the Act. On the 19th June, 1913, the Hon. Mr. Caron answered as follows:
Hon. Mr. Burrell,
Minister of, Agriculture,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir: In a lettre dated the 2nd June, instant, Mr. C. C. James wrote to me that you would be prepared within a few days to consider my proposals as to the lines of expenditure of the grant promised to the province of Quebec in virtue of the Agricultural Bill. Would you be kind enough to tell me when and where I could meet with respect to my proposals as to the above grant?
Yours very truly,
J. E. Caron, Minister of Agriculture.
3.	Proposed details of expenditure were submitted by all provinces. By several of the provinces certain items were included which were considered not to come within the meaning of the Act. Correspondence and interviews with provincial representatives followed, and, as a result, the agreements were duly entered into, all provinces being treated alike. The items embodied in the respective agreements and mutually agreed on by the respective parties are as follows:
(Statements filed with the Clerk of the House.)
4.	Total amount received by each province :
Ontario	$175,733	32Quebec	
139,482	40Nova Scotia	
34,288	45New Brunswick	
24,509	93Prince Edward Island.... 6,529	85	.British Columbia	
27,334	76Manitoba	'.. .. 31,730 05	:
Saskatchewan	$,'34,296 29
Alberta	 26,094 95


$500,000 THE DREDGE CANADA.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	Were tenders asked by the Department of Public Works for a boiler for the dredge Canada?
2.	If so, how many were received, what were the names of the tenderers and amount of each tender?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded, and what was the amount?


Robert Rogers: '
1.	Yes.
2.	Arthur Cox & Company, Halifax, $3,350; Brown Machine Company, New Glasgow, $3,350; Thompson Bros., Liverpool, $4,000; Union Foundry and Machine Company, St. John, $3,175; J. W. Cummings & Son, New Glasgow, $3,274.50; Poison Iron Works, Toronto, $3,650; John Inglis Company, Toronto, $3,250.
3.	John Inglis Company, Toronto, $3,250; this firm being the only one which would guarantee delivery of boiler in the required period, namely, twelve weeks.


NATIONAL, ART GALLERY.
*Hr. MURPHY:: How many persons have visited the National Art Gallery on each Sunday afternoon since it has been open to the public?


Robert Rogers: First Sunday, 769; second Sunday, 1,500; third Sunday, 1,100; and since then the average is 1,000 to 1,100. No daily record having been kept after the first three Sundays, the attendance is included in the weekly record.


OTTAWA CUSTOM HOUSE.
*Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	What portion of the work on the new custom house at Ottawa is being done by the Foundation Company ?
2.	Did the said company obtain the said work by tender in public competition? If so, who were the other tenderers?
3.	If public tenders were not invited, what arrangements as to prices, etc., were made with the Foundation Company?
4.	How much has been paid the said company to date? What further amount is to be paid the company on the completion of its work?
5.	Who are the members of the said company, and where are its headquarters in the United States?
6.	What is the total cost to date of all work done on the said custom house?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Completing the pier foundation.
2.	No.	'	-rrw
3.	A fee of 12 per cent of the cost of the
work, said cost to include all costs of whatsoever nature (except rental paid by the minister for plant, equipment and tools on the work when taken over).
4.	Paid to 27th November, 1913, $29,452.01.
5.	(a) Members not known; (b) headquarters American firm, New York; headquarters Canadian firm, Montreal.
6.	$521,585.52.


EAST RIVER IMPROVEMENTS.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Who were the tenderers, and what was the amount of each tender, for the improvements at East river, county of Pictou?
2.	When are the said improvements to be completed?
1.	McDougall Bros., based on unit prices, $390,701.35; the Halifax'Dredging Company, $483,332.90; Brown and Aylmer, $516,372.40.
2.	April 3, 1915.


STEAMSHIP KARLUK.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	What are the names of the officers and men on board the Karluk when last heard from?
2.	Does the Government intend to take steps to get into communication with the Karluk? 1
3.	If so, when, and by what means?
4.	Has the Government received a copy of the communication reported in the press to have been addressed by Mr. Stefansson to Mr. R. F. Stupart?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Scientists: Messrs. Beuchat, McKay, Mamen, McKinlay, Murray and Malloch.
Officers and men of ship: R. A. Bartlett, captain; A. Anderson, 1st officer; John Munro, 1st engineer; Charles Baker, 2nd officer; R. J. Williamson, 2nd engineer, F. W. Maurer, fireman; G. Breddy, fireman; John Brady, A.B.; Stanley F. Morris, A.B.; A. King, A.B.; H. Williams, A.B.; R. Templeman, steward; Ernest F. Chafe, cook; J. Hadley, utility man.
2	and 3. A mail was forwarded to the expedition by means of a party of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, leaving Dawson City in January; this party will bring back a mail from the expedition. Another mail left Edmonton on the 28th January for Fort Good Hope, arrangements having been made with the Hudson Bay Company to forward it to Fort McPherson, from which point the Royal Northwest Mounted Police or the Hudson Bay Company will forward it to the Southern party. Arrangements are also in progress to forward mails, supplies, etc., by the regular routes during the summer.
4.	Mr. Stupart, director of the Meteorological Service, received a letter from Mr. Stefansson, asking to be supplied with certain scientific instruments.


ESQUIMALT DKY DOCK.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Has the Government acquired a site for the proposed dry dock at Esquimau, B.C. ?
2.	If so, where is the site?
3.	From whom was the said site acquired?
4.	How much land is comprised in said site, and what is the price?
5.	Has the price been paid, and to whom?


Robert Rogers: No site yet acquired.


TORONTO HARBOUR WORKS.
Mr. PARDEE:: 1.	When were tenders called for the Toronto harbour works?
2.	Who were the tenderers, and what was the amount of each?
3. On what date were the tenders received?
4. On what date were the tenders awarded?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	July 12, 1913.
2.	Approximately,
unit prices.
1st. Canadian Stewart Co., Ltd. $5,371,372 17 2nd. Quinlan & Robertson .... 5,735,567 17
3rd. Laurin, Leitch & Co	 5,998,459 28
4th. Anglo-Canadian Contractors
Limited	 7,895,121	66
3.	1st, August 25, 1913; 2nd, August 25, 1913; 3rd, August 25, 1913; 4th, August 26, 1913.
4.	Contract awarded by Order in Council, September 15, 1913.


EMPLOYMENT OF H. T. SMITH.
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Is there a man by the name of 41. T. Smith working at the Printing Bureau?
2.	If so, what are his duties, and what is his salary?
3.	Is he allowed any time during the year for vacation? If so, how many days per year?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	His duties are to see that the electoral voters' lists are printed in accordance with the copies received from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. Blank ballot papers are also distributed as required. His salary is $2,000 per annum.
3.	He is allowed three weeks' vacation as per section 101, chapter 16, an Act respecting the Civil Service of Canada.
PENITENTIARY INVESTIGATION COMMISSION.	0


Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	Who are the members of the Penitentiary Investigation Commission?
2.	When were they appointed?
3.	What was the wording of the instructions given to the commission?
4.	Has a copy of the evidence in regard to charges preferred against Deputy Warden

O'Leary, Dr. Phalen and II. W. Wilson, been sent to the Minister of Justice?
5.	Has the commission reported to the minister in regard to said charges?
6.	When does the minister expect to receive the final report of the commission?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1 and 2. Answered by No. 3.
The following is a copy of the commission. No other instructions were given the commissioners:
Know you that under and by virtue of Part 11 of the Inquiries Act, chapter 104, Revised Statutes, 1906, and under the authority of an order of His Excellency, the Administrator of the Government of Canada in Council made in pursuance of said part 11 and bearing date the twenty-fifth day of August, in the year of Oui Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirteen (a copy of which is hereto annexed), and by virtue of all and every other power in that behalf vested in me, I the Honourable Charles Doherty, Minister of Justice of Canada, do hereby nominate, constitute and appoint you, the said George Milnes Macdonnell, you the said Frederick Ether-ington, and you the said Joseph Patrick Downey, to be commissioners to investigate and report upon the following matters:
(a)	The state and management of Kingston penitentiary.
(b)	The conduct of the officers and employees of said penitentiary so far as the same relates to their official duties, and
(c)	Generally the subject of the conduct and administration of penitentiaries, including such methods as may conduce to the permanent reformation of the convicts and, without prejudice to the punishment which convicts should properly undergo and without undue burden upon the public funds, tend to mitigate as far as may be found possible the sufferings entailed by their confinement upon those dependent upon them.
Provided that the inquiries under which paragraphs (a) and (b) shall not extend back over a longer period than five years, except in so far as the commissioners may deem it desirable in the public interest to inquire into any particular matters antecedent to such period.
And we do further nominate, constitute and appoint you, the said George Milnes Macdonnell to be chairman of the said commission.
To have, hold, exercise and enjoy the office of commissioners as aforesaid unto you the said George Milnes Macdonnell, you file said. Frederick Etherington, and

you the said Joseph Patrick Downey, together with all and every the powers, rights, authority, privileges, emoluments and advantages by virtue of said part 11 and otherwise unto the said office of right and by law appertaining.
And I do hereby require you as such commissioners to report to me at my office at Ottawa the result of your investigation.
Dated at the Department of Justice at Ottawa this twenty-fifth day of August, in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirteen.
4.	A copy of the evidence before the commission has been received by the minister.
5.	Report not yet received.
6.	About the 15th of March next.
FRONTENAC RURAIj MAIL.


Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	When was the first rural mail delivery route established in the county of Frontenac?
2.	How many such routes have .been established in the county of Frontenac?
3.	What is the total mileage of such routes?
4.	How many post offices have been closed In said county in consequence of the establishing of such rural routes?
5.	What is the total number of box holders on rural routes in Frontenac county?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	1st June, 1909.
2.	27.
3.	372J miles.
4.	17.
5.	875.


DEPARTMENT OF MILITIA EMPLOYEES.
*Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Referring to the answers given by the Minister of Militia and Defence to questions reported on page 466 of unrevised 'Hansard,' what are the names of the persons who accompanied the Minister of Militia and Defence on his visits to inspect the German, Belgian and Dutch manoeuvres in the summer of 1913?
2.	If such' persons were at the time of the minister's said visits, or are now, employed in the Government service, what are their occupations and grades in the Civil Service?
3.	What are the names of the private secretary and assistant private secretary of the Minister of Militia and Defence, wnen were they appointed and what are their respective salaries?
4.	Is Clifford McAdam employed by the Department of Militia and Defence? If so, in what capacity and when was he appointed?
5.	Did he pass the open competitive Civil Service examination?
6.	What was his occupation just prior to being placed in the department, and what is his present salary?
7.	Was a man named Allan O. Healey employed by or on behalf of the Department of
Militia and Defence at the new rifle range in Carleton county, Ontario?
8.	If so, when was he appointed and what were his duties and salary?
9.	In what occupation was he engaged just prior to his being so employed?
10.	Is the said Allan O. Healey still in the employ of the department? If not, when was he dismissed and what was the reason for his dismissal? -
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1.	Miss E. McAdam, private secretary, appointed 1st January, 1913, Subdivision , A, Third Division; salary $900 per annum, plus $300 (private secretary's allowance), and her sister, Miss Isobel McAdam, acting assistant private secretary, appointed temporary clerk 6th February, 1913, salary $500 per annum, and Orderly Weghorne, Canadian Permanent Army Service Corps.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
4.	Yes. Appointed inspector of hardware December 13, 1913.
5.	Passed Civil Service examination prescribed for technical appointment under provisions of section 21, Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908, and was granted a certificate by the Civil Service Commission.
6.	(a) Purchasing partner in Mulhall and Co., hardware, Ottawa, (b) Present salary $1,200 a year.
7.	Yes.
8.	Appointed February 10, 1913. Duties, checking cement and other materials. Salary, $3 a day on appointment; subsequently raised to $4 a day April 1, 1913.
9.	It is understood that he was cement inspector on Ottawa city works.
10.	No. Discharged December 13, 1913, for improperly disposing of about fifty barrels of cement, which was subsequently returned.
PAYMENTS TO TRUDEL & MCADAM.


*Mr. PROULX:: 1.	What amounts, if any, were paid by the Government or any department thereof, between November 7, 1911, and February 9, 1913, to the firm of Trudel & McAdam, of Ottawa, or either of the members of the said firm?
2.	Between the said dates what services, if any, were rendered the Government by the said firm or either member thereof?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1.	Trudel & McAdam, $15.	2. Repairs
to private car,


MILITIA DEPARTMENT AUTOMOBILES.
[Stage Direction]
*M,r. PROULX:
1.	In connection with the visit of the Minister of Militia and Defence and party to Europe in 1913, were automobiles engaged in England
[Stage Direction]
for the use of the party or some of its members? If so, how many, from whom, and at what rate per day?
2.	Were the said automobiles sent from England to meet the party at some point on the continent? If so, to what point on the continent were the said automobiles sent?
3.	To what places on the continent were the members of the party conveyed by the said automobiles?
4.	How long were the said automobiles used by the Minister of Militia or his party?
5.	What was the total amount paid for the use of the said automobiles?
6.	What was the total cost of the said trip from the time the minister and party left Canada until their return thereto?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1.	Yes; average seven cars per day; Wolseley Motor Car Co., Ltd. Varied rates according to capacity of car and miles travelled, including driver's pay and expenses.
2.	Yes, to Boulogne.
3.	* All over northern and north-eastern France, where manoeuvres were being carried on, and to Switzerland, and also in England to the manoeuvres.
4.	From 3rd September to 17th October.
5.	$6,904.26.
6.	Answered on the 4th instant.
*Mr. PROULX:: 1.	How many automobiles were bought by the Department of Militia and Defence during the year 1913, and what did each cost?
2.	Were they bought by public tender or by private sale?
3.	How many of the said automobiles are used in Ottawa, and at what place or places are they 1 -^t or stored when not in use?
4.	How much is paid per month for the storage of each?
5.	What are the names of the chauffeurs employed to run the said automobiles, and what wages does each chauffeur receive per month?
6.	What amount was paid by the Department of Militia and Defence- in the years 1912 and 1913 for the repairs, furnishings and upkeep of its automobiles?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1.	None.
2,	3, 4 and 5. Answered by No. 1.
6.	$8,644.92, for all Canada.


MILITIA DEPARTMENT SPECIAL TRAIN.
*Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Was a special train provided for the inspection of the Minister of Militia and Defence and General Sir Ian Hamilton in the summer of 1913?
2.	If so, what was the cost of the said train?
3.	What was the total cost of the inspection trip?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1.	Yes.
2.	$10,000.
3.	$20,740.


GENERAL SIR IAN HAMILTON.
*Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Did the Minister of Militia and Defence, the Honourable Colonel Sam Hughes, or any person or persons with his knowledge and approval, send as a present to General Sir Ian Hamilton the horse which was provided for the latter's use while he was inspecting the Canadian Militia in the summer of 1913?
2.	If so, on what date was the horse sent to Sir Ian Hamilton?
3.	Was the horse shipped prior to the receipt
by the Government of Sir Ian Hamilton's report?	J
4.	What was the purchase price of the horse, and to what vote, fund, appropriation, or estimate was the said purchase price charged?
5.	Did Sir Ian Hamilton acknowledge the .receipt or delivery of the horse? If so, what is the date of his acknowledgment?


Mr. SAM HUGHES:: 1.	Yes.
2.	On August 3, 1913.
3.	No.
4.	Purchase price, $175. Paid with all other costs on behalf of self and others.
5.	Yes. August 19, 1913.


MILITARY TOUR.
Mr. PROULX:: .
1.	Has the attention of the Minister of Militia and Defence been drawn to an item in the Ottawa Citizen of November 7, 1913, in the following terms:
' Military tour-Scene of battle will be laid at Green's creek.
Arrangements have been made for a staff tour to be held under the command of Col. Hemming, of the 3rd Military division, for the staff officers of the Ottawa garrison today and Saturday. Motor cars will leave with the officers from the drill hall at noon today going to the locality around Green's creek.
2.	Bj' whose orders do Militia officers go on staff tours in motor cars?
3.	Are private soldiers allowed the use of motor cars in the same way as officers? If not, why not?
4 Has any order or regulation been passed whereby officers in the Canadian Militia are prohibited from marching on foot?


Mr. SAM HUGHES:: 1.	No.
2.	Militia headquarters. (Pay and allowance regulations, Art. 513a.)
3.	Yes, when they take part in staff tours.
4.	No.


MILITIA SHAM BATTLE.
*Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Is the Minister of Militia and Defence aware that the following despatch was published in the Canadian press on October 21, 1913 :
4 Fairweather soldiers kept out of the rain- Thanksgiving sham battle postponed for fear defenders of Toronto would catch cold. Toronto, Oct. 20.-The usual sham battle which takes place on Thanksgiving did not come off

today. The military authorities of Toronto did not wish to have any brave defenders run the risk of contracting colds, so when day broke dark with a drizzling rain falling, they decided that the fight would not be pulled off. A great deal of fun is being made locally of the regiments who would not defend the city in a rainstorm.'
2.	Did the minister inquire into the fact alleged in the said despatch? If so, what action did- he take? If not. will he hold an inquiry?
3.	Has any regulation been passed exempting the Militia, in case of wet or cold weather, from nerforming duties similar to those performed prior to Thanksgiving day, 1913?


Mr. SAM HUGHES:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	No.	*


INVERNESS POSTAL SERVICE.
Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: Referring to the answer given by the Postmaster General, that on October 17 last, boxes for collecting letters were placed in the village of Chesley, South Bruce, having a population of 1,710, does the department intend to give like accommodation to the town of Inverness, Inverness county, N.S., which has a population of 3,500


Mr. PELLETIER:: The population of Inverness at the last census was 2,719. The postal revenue for the last fiscal year was $2,821.61. The pos'tal revenue of Chesley in South Bruce for the last fiscal year was $5,346.93. In the answer referred to, the population of Chesley was given as 1,734. As already stated in this connection, the Post Office Department does not take into account, when considering applications for street letter box services, the population so much as the amount of postal business transacted and the necessity for such accommodation in the public interest.


PETAVVAWA CAMP.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Was a sum of money expended by the Department of Militia and Defence in the year ending March 31, 1913, for a detective service at Petawawa
2.	If so, what was the gross expenditure in connection with this service?
3.	What was the purpose of employing said detectives?
4.	How many were employed?
5.	Were any detectives employed at the Militia camps during the season of 1913? If so, where?


Mr. SAM HUGHES:: 1.	Yes, in connection with provincial and other services.
2.	$572.85.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Two.
5.	No.


LOBSTER POUNDS LICENSES.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Were any licenses granted during 1913, to persons, firms or corporate bodies ter operate lobster pounds for the retention of lobsters caught during the legal season to be sold during the close season?
2.	If so, what is the name and post office address of each such licensees?


Hr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	E. L. Conley, Leonardville, N.B.; L. C. Watt, North Head, N.B.; Gardiner & Doon, St. Andrews, N.B.


SEAMAN JOSEPH LEBLANC.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: Referring to the answers given on February 11 instant, to the questions relating to the death of the sailor Joseph LeBlanc, of D.G.S. Canada, did the Right Honourable Prime Minister "reply to the request of Mrs. Margaret Richard that the body of said sailor be sent to Port Felix, N.S., for interment at the expense of the Government? If so, what was his reply?


John Douglas Hazen: The letter in question was transferred to the Department of the - Naval Service, and was answered by the deputy minister of that department on the 12th September, 1913, to the effect that Mrs. Richard's brother had already been buried in the Roman Catholic cemetery of Cote des Neiges, Montreal.


ST. LAWRENCE PILOTAGE.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Has the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries been called to the following, which appeared in the last annual report of the Liverpool Underwriters' Association:
'The committee are now glad to be able to state that in consequence of reiterated complaints, the %hole question of St. Lawrence Pilotage ha's been under investigation by a Royal Commission. It is earnestly hoped that in the interest of the increasing number and size of vessels frequenting the river, the recommendation of the commission for the better organizing and administering of the pilotage will bring about material reduction of the risks of navigation in this important waterway'.
2.	Does the Government intend putting into force the Royal Commission's recommendation?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	In so far as the department is competent to do so, all of the recommendations submitted by the Royal Commission on Pilotage, material to the administration of the service, have been approved and put into force. Certain of the recommendations cannot be enforced without amending the Canada Shipping Act, chapter 113, R.S.O. The necessary amendments will be considered in the Bill for the revision and con-

solidation of the Canada Shipping Act, which I intend submitting to Parliament at an early date.


DTINVEGAN TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	On what land is the Government telegraph office at Dunvegan situated?
2.	How far is it from Hudson Bay post and ferry?
3.	What is the difference in elevation between the telegraph office and the Hudson Bay post?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	North Dunvegan subdivision on southeast quarter section 20, township 80, range 4, west of 6th meridian.
2.	1J miles.
3.	650 feet above Hudson's Bay post.


EXPENDITURE ON MILITARY WORKS.
Mr. LAW:: What is the total proposed expenditure in the Estimates for 1914-1915, under the heading of Public Works, for barracks, drill sheds, armouries, ordnance buildings, and public works of all kinds which, when completed, are to be devoted to military service?


Robert Rogers: 


SEED LOBSTERS.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	How many seed lobsters have been placed *in the lobster pond at Long Beach, St. Mary's, Digby county?
2.	What was cost of said seed lobsters for each year?
3.	What amount has the Department of Marine and Fisheries expended on said lobster pond since its purchase?
4.	How many lobsters have been liberated from said pond?
5.	Where were the lobsters so liberated distributed?


John Douglas Hazen: _
1.	196, but the pond not being completed vas only in partial operation.
2.	1913, 25 cents each.
3.	$10,089.85.
4.	169.
5.	Central Cove, 31; Cape St. Mary, 12; Whale Cove, 4; East Ferry, 3; Free Port, 17; Victoria Beach, 30; Church Point, 2; Meteghan, 3; Parker's Cove, 37; Gulliver's, 10; Mink Cove, 6; Tommies Beach, 4; White's Cove, 7; Little River, 3; total, 169.


TOBIQUE INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	What persons or firms have been allowed by the Department of Indian Affairs, to cut lumber off Tobique Indian reserve?
2.	What quantity has been cut by such person or firm?
3.	What amount has been paid by each as royalty or stumpage, or both?
4.	Have these persons been allowed to cut green or dead trees, or both?
5.	Have the rights to cut as aforesaid been given after public tender?
6.	If not, what method has been adopted?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	During the last fiscal year Mr. B. F. Smith, has been allowed to cut burnt timber on the south side of the Tobique river.
2.	The quantity cut is unknown, as the returns have not yet been received from the Indian agent.

3.	No stumpage has as yet been paid.
4.	No permission to cut green or partly green trees has been given.
5.	Tenders were asked for by the local Indian agent.
6.	Answered by No. 5.


CASE OF F. PEDLEY.
Mr. BOULAY:: Has F. Pedley, Superintendent of Indian Affairs been dismissed from office? If not, why did he leave, for what reasons and was his case investigated?


Mr. ROCHE:: No. Mr. Pedley resigned after an investigation had been held.


HANTS COUNTY ELECTORAL. LISTS.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Is the Department of Marine and Fisheries aware that Jas. D. Dennison, of Mount Douson, lightkeeper, is said to be reviser of the electoral lists in one of the rural districts of Hants county?
2.	If not, will the department verify this statement?
3.	What is the rule and practice of the department in regards to its officials acting in such capacity?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1. The Department of Marine and Fisheries has no knowledge of a light-station named Mount Douson, nor of a lightkeeper named Jas. D. Dennison.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


BRANTFORD PUBLIC BUILDING.
Mr. NESBITT:: 1.	What stone was specified to be used in the Brantford public building by the architect?
2.	Was it to be Canadian?
3.	What was the estimated value?
4.	From whom was it purchased?
5.	From where was it purchased?
6.	Who was the contractor for cutting the stone?
7.	Where was his home when contract was made?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Georgetown, Ontario, was specified.
2.	Yes.
3.	No detailed estimate was made for the stone.
4.	The stone used was Berea, Ohio, sandstone, as the price quoted by the contractor in his tender was considerably lower than the price for Georgetown stone and thi3 tender wras accepted.
5.	Berea, Ohio.
6 and 7. The cutting of the stone was included in the contract awarded to P. H. Seeord and Sons, Limited, Brantford.


SESSIONAL INDEMNITIES.
Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	Is the Government aware that the Hon. Frederic Debartzch Monk, member for the county of Jacques Cartier, has been absent from this House during the whole of last session of Parliament?
2.	Is the Government aware that the Hon. Frederic Debartzch Monk, in spite of his absence from this House during last session, is said to have been paid his sessional indemnity for the last session?


Robert Laird Borden: The following item is contained in the Estimates for the present fiscal year:
To provide for making good the full sessional indemnity of members of the House of Commons-days lost through absence caused by illness or public business during the present session-notwithstanding anything in chapter 10 of the Revised Statutes, An Act respecting the Senate and House of Commons, or any amendments thereto, $17,965.
Under this Estimate, which was passed by Parliament, a number of gentlemen on both sides of the House received indemnities to which they would not be entitled under the strict terms of the Act. There were cases of death, cases of illness, cases of absence on public business. The gentlemen mentioned are Mr. Bickerdike, Mr. Cash, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Clare, Mr. Elson, Mr. Foster (North Toronto), Mr. Fowler, Mr. Haggart, Mr. Monk, Mr. Thompson, (Yukon), Mr. Tobin, and Mr. Lamarche. The Hon. Federic Debartzch Monk was detained by illness during the entire session, and he received his indemnity under the terms of the statute to which I have alluded.


ALBERTA RURAL MAIL.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	How many rural mail delivery routes have been established in Alberta?
2.	Where are they located?
3.	Are any of the routes provided with a daily service?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	37.
2.	Bittern Lake No. 1, (via Halley); Bremner No. 1, (via East Clover Bar); Brightview No. 1, (via Scottdale); Calgary No. 1, (via Millarville); Calgary No. 2, (via Jumping Pond); Calgary No. 3, (via Freshfield); Calgary No. 4, (via Simons Valley); Clive No. 1, (via Fountainstown); Clover Bar No. 1, (via West Salisbury); Crossfield No. 1, (via Rumworth); Del-burne No. 1, (via Balermo); DeWinton No. 1, (via Gladys); Dunstable No. 1, (via Manola); Dunstable No. 2, (via Rich Valley); Edgerton Station No. 1, (via Prospect



Valley); Edmonton No. 1, (via Namao); Edmonton No. 2, (via New Lunnon); Fish-burn No. 1, (via Yarrow Bridge); Halkirk No. 1, (via Foreman); High River No. J, (via Tongue Creek); Innisfail No. 1, (via Markerville); Lacombe No. 1, (via Rim bey); Lacombe No. 2, (via Brooksley!; Lacombe No. 3, (via Lochinvar); Leduc No. 1, (via Conjuring Creek); Leduc No. 2, (via Beaumont); MacLeod No. 1, (via Standoff); New Norway No. 1, (via High land Park); Okotoks No. 1, (via Lineham); Penhold No. 1, (via Pine Lake); Red Deer No. 1, (via Pitcox); Red Deer No. 2, (via Coal Banks); Riviere qui Barre No. 1, (via Belvedere); Sedgewick No. 1, (via Leopoldville); St. Albert No. 1, (via Villeneuve); Tees No. 1, (via Crooksley); Wetaskiwirj No. 1, (via Yeoford).
3.	Yes. Innisfail No. I; Lacombe No. 1.


AVIGNON POSTMASTER.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Was any action taken by the Postmaster General in the case of the postmaster of Avignon, Quebec, and his assistant, for the course followed by them, as revealed in the following document, brought down to the House by the minister on January 22nd last, in answer to an order:
Conservative committee of the parish of St Alexis, county of Bonaventure.
At a meeting of the members of the Conservative Committee of this parish, called for to-day, were present: Thomas Levesque, mayor; Octave Martin, postmaster; Joseph Arsenault, assistant postmaster; Ludger Gallant, merchant; Johnny O. Martin, Joseph O. Martin, Gregoire Dumas, Jerome D. Pitre, Thomas Duucet and Thomas C. Gallant.
Moved by Thomas Levesque and resolved unanimously, that thanks be tendered to Mr. David Champoux, of Restigouche, county of Bonaventure, P.Q., for the interest he has taken in the change he has obtained from the Postmaster General, Ottawa, in connection with the post office of Avignon, P.Q.
Moved by Ludger Gallant, seconded by Jerome L. Pitre, that the members of this committee are of opinion that, in the interest of the party, it is necessary that the post office of St. Benoit, Bonaventure county, be transferred to George Roy, the present postmaster, Mr. Edward LeGresley, having interfered with politics during the last federal election, and that a copy of the resolutions passed by this committee, bearing date the 6th of February and 4th of March, 1912, be forwarded to Mr. David Champoux.
Mathias Blanqui&re,
President.
Joseph Arsenault,
Secretary.
A true copy.
February 3, 1913.
2.	If no action was taken, why not?
3.	Who is the postmaster at Avignon, and is he still president or secretary of the said Conservative Committee?
[Mr. Pelletier. 1


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 1 and 2. Mr. Mathias Blaquiere was not appointed postmaster of Avignon until the 12th March, 1913.
3.	Mr. Mathias Blaquiere is postmaster of Avignon. The department has no information as to whether he is president of a Conservative committee.


THREE RIVERS DISMISSALS.
Mr. BUREAU:: At whose request, and for what reasons were George Frigon and Auguste Cooke dismissed from the Three Rivers post office staff?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: George Frigon and Auguste Cooke were employed as clerks in the Three Rivers post office during the pleasure of the Postmaster General. They were not appointed under the Civil Service Act, and in consequence could be removed from office at any time by order of the Postmaster General. These employees were dispensed with on the 6th and the 10th January, 1914, respectively, their services being no longer required.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS. .
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. H. Clarke.-For a copy of all letters, petitions, telegrams, complaints, evidence, reports and other papers and documents in the possession of the Customs Department relating to the dismissal of Frederick Forster, sub-collector of customs at Kingsville, Ont., and if there was- an investigation, the names of all the witnesses, and a copy of the evidence; and also of all the papers connected with the appointment of his successor.
Mr. A. H. Clarke.-For a copy of all letters, petitions, telegrams, complaints, evidence, reports and other papers and documents in the possession of the Department of the Postmaster General, relating to the dismissal of James H. Smart, postmaster at Kingsville, Ont., and if there was an investigation, the names of all witnesses and a copy of the evidence; and also of all papers connected with the appointment of his successor.
Mr. A. H. Clarke.-For a copy of all letters, petitions, telegrams, complaints, evidence, reports and other papers and documents in the possession of the Customs Department, relating to the dismissal of Ralph Harris, sub-collector of customs at Pelee Island, Ont., and if there was an investigation, the names of all witnesses, and a copy of the evidence; and also of all the papers connected" with the appointment of his successor.
Mr. A. H. Clarke.-For a copy of all letters, petitions, telegrams, complaints, evidence, reports and other papers and documents in the possession of the Customs Department, relating to the dismissal of Aylmer Orton, customs officer at Windsor, Ont., and if there was an investigation, the names of all witnesses, and a copy of the evidence; and also of all the papers

connected with the appointment of his successor.
Mr. A. H. Clarke.-For a copy of all letters, petitions, telegrams, complaints, evidence, reports and other papers and documents in the possession of the Interior Department, relating to the dismissal of Andrew Darragh, immigration officer at Windsor, Ont., and if there was an investigation, the names of all witnesses, and a copy of the evidence; and also of all the papers connected with the appointment of his successor.
Mr. A. H. Clarke.-For a copy of all letters, petitions, telegrams, complaints, evidence, reports and other papers and documents in the possession of the Interior Department, relating to the dismissal of John Halstead, immigration officer at Windsor, Ont., and if there was an investigation, the names of all the witnesses, and a copy of the evidence; and also of all the papers connected with the appointment of his successor.
Mr. Oliver.-For a copy of all papers necessary to convey full information as to the charter, outfit and instructions of the Karluk and auxiliary vessels; the names, rank, pay and terms of engagement of their officers and crews; and of all communications received from Mr. V. Stefansson, or any other person who has received such communication, written after the expedition sailed for the Arctic ocean.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, pay-rolls, vouchers and documents of all kinds connected in any way with repairs or extension of wharf at Finlay Point, Mabou, Inverness county, during the year 1910-1911.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm.-For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, tenders and documents connected in any way with the supplying of coal to the lobster hatchery at Margaree during the years 1910-1911, 1911-1912, 1912-1913, and 1913-1914.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm.-For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, petitions and documents of all kinds in any way referring to a drill shed or armoury to be built at the town of Inverness, Inverness county, Nova Scotia.
Mr.	A.	W.	Chisholm.-For	a	copy	of	all
telegrams, correspondence and documents of all kinds in any way relating to the dismissal or suspension from duty of Dan. Cormier, an officer of the lifesaving station at Eastern harbour, Inverness county, .Nova Scotia.
Mr.	A.	W.	Chisholm.-For	a	copy	of	all
letters, telegrams, correspondence and documents of all kinds in any way relating to a lighthouse to be built at Red Cape, Margaree harbour, Inverness county.
Mr.	A.	W.	Chisholm.-For	a	copy	of	all
letters, telegrams and correspondence of all kinds in any way relating to repairs required on the pier at Margaree harbour, Inverness county, received in 1912-1913 and 1913-1914.
Mr.	A.	W.	Chisholm.-For	a	copy	of	allletters, telegrams, correspondence of all kinds, pay-rolls,	vouchers, in any	way referring
to the expenditure of moneys on sheer dams on the Margaree river, at Margaree and Northeast Margaree, during 1911-1912 and 19121913.
Mr.	A.	W.	Chisholm.-For	a	copy	of	all
letters, telegrams, correspondence and petitions in any way advocating the expenditure of money on the following works, received during the years 1911-1912, 1912-1913 and 1913-1914: Closing of the northern entrance of Port Hood harbour; Reconstruction of the public wharf
at Port Hood; extension of wharf at Judique; opening of an artificial harbour at Troy Pond; the opening of a channel at Loch Ban, lake Ainslie ; the opening of a channel at Inverness harbour; the repairs to the breakwater at Margaree harbour and the construction ' of breakwater or breakwaters to the west of the channel of the said harbour; the construction of a wharf at Dunvegan; the building of a wharf at Chimney Corner; the repairs to the boat harbour at Friar's Head ; repairs and extension of the pier at St. Josephs; dredging of Grand Etang harbour; the construction of a pier at Cheticamp Point, and the extension of the pier at Cap Rouge.
Mr. Gauvreau.-For a copy of the pay-list, including the names and residences, of the men who have worked on the wharf to the west of Rivi£re-Verte, T6miscouata; the number of days' work of each of them; the amount of money received by each of them; who has or have signed the receipt or receipts for said amounts on said pay-list or otherwise, the whole for, (lo) 1912; (2o) 1913.
Mr. Gauvreau.-For a copy of the pay list, including the name and residences, of all those who have worked at the wharf of L'ile Verte, county of Temiscouata; the number of days of employment of each of them; the amount received by each of them; who has or have signed the receipt or receipts for said amounts, in connection with the works which have been going on during the summer of 1912 and during the summer of 1913.
Mr. Gauvreau.-For a copy of the pay list, of all soldiers who were connected with the Levis camp last summer, 1913 ; the names and residences of all the officers and soldiers who took part in that encampment; the number of days of camping of each of them; the amount received by each of them; the names of those who signed receipts on the pays lists for each of such amounts; and the amount of money paid for each military drill day for the soldiers, the lieutenants, the captains and the majors, respectively.
Mr. Marcil.-For a copy of any complaints made against John A. Campbell, postmaster of New Richmond, Quebec, and of all correspondence bearing on any change called for in that office.
Mr. Marcil.-For a copy of all documents bearing on the appointment and dismissal of Len V. Willett, as light keeper at Point Duthie, Quebec, and of the appointment of James Doddridge as his successor, as well as of those bearing on the contemplated removal of that light to main wharf.
Mr. Marcil.-For a copy of the charges made against Mrs. Marguerite Fair, postmistress of Black Cape, Quebec, on which Mr. Louis Tache, of Rimouski, was authorized to hold an investigation, together with the report of said investigation, if any was held.
Mr. Marcil.-For a copy of all documents bearing on the repairing and improvement of the Matapedia Road in the counties of Rimouski and Bonaventure.
Mr. Marcil.-For a copy of all documents bearing on the dismissal of the officer in charge of the Port Daniel West, Quebec, lobster hatchery, Edward Dea, and on the appointment of his successor.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all tenders, contracts, memoranda, pay rolls, accounts, vouchers, correspondence, papers and documents. etc., in connection with work performed
[Stage Direction]
upon the Government wharf at Croft's Cove, Lunenburg county, in 112.
Mr. Knowles.-For a copy of all papers in connection -with the sub-lands agency in Gravelburg, Saskatchewan.
Mr. Knowles.-For a copy of all papers in connection with the Public Building at Gravelburg, from and since January 1, 1912.
Mr. Knowles.-For a copy of all papers in connection with the employment of Arthur Du-bisson as immigration agent at Gravelburg, Sask., and all papers in connection with the said Dubisson, showing the moneys paid to him and the work performed by him.
Mr. Knowles.-For a copy of all papers in connection with the Immigration Hall at Gravelburg, Sask., from and since the 1st January, i912.
Mr. Knowles.-For a copy of all papers in connection with the S.W. 23-16-12 W. 3 M.
Mr. Knowles.-For a copy of all papers in
connection with the N.K. 1, 22-11-5-W. 3 M.
Mr. Seguin.-For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, petitions and other documents relating to the dismissal of Jos.
Serguin Archambault, as postmaster of the town of Terrebonne, and to the appointment of George Beausoleil, as his successor.
Mr. Gauvreau.-For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, reports, deeds, fees paid to lawyers, and other documents relative to the purchasing of land from Mrs. C. F. Bertrand and Arthemise Dionne, in connection with the works on the southwest side of Riviere Verte, l'lslet, county of Temiscouata.
Mr. Lemieux.-For a copy of all papers, correspondence, etc., in connection with the survey of Indian holding No. 130 A., situate on the Caughnawaga Indian Reserve, Quebec.
Mr. Bourassa.-For a return showing the name of the postmaster of the parish of St. Romuald, county of L6vis, who, it is said, was dismissed from office since September, 1911, the reasons for such dismissal, the nature of the complaints made against him, the names of the parties who made those complaints, together with a copy of all correspondence and telegrams relating thereto, the name of the inquiring commissioner, and report of investigation, if any, and of all evidence taken at the investigation, the names of those who recommended the successor, names of the parties by whom the Government was represented at such investigation, with a detailed statement of all the accounts paid or to be .paid by any department in connection with the aforesaid dismissal and investigation, the names of the parties who received any money or filed their accounts in connection with said investigation and the amount awarded to or claimed by each of them.
Mr. Bourassa.-For a return showing the name of the postmaster of the parish of Notre Dame de Charny, county of Levis, who, it is stated, was dismissed from office since September, 1911, the reasons for such dismissal, tfie nature of the complaints made against him, the names of the parties who made those complaints, together with a copy of all correspondence and telegrams relating thereto, the name of the inquiring commissioner, and report of investigation, if any, and of all evidence taken at the investigation, the names of those wrho recommended the successor, names of the parties by whom the Government was represented at such investigation, with a detailed statement of all the accounts paid or to be paid by any

department in connection with the aforesaid dismissal and investigation, uie names of the parties who received any money or filed their accounts in connection with said investigation, and the amount awarded to or claimed by each of them.
Mr. Bourassa.-For a return showing the name of the postmaster of the parish of St. Henri de Lauzon, county of Levis, wrho, it is said, was dismissed from office since September, 1911, the reasons for such dismissal, the nature of the complaints made against him, the names of the parties who made those complaints, together with a copy of all correspondence and telegrams relating thereto, the name of the inquiring commissioner, and report of investigation, if any, and of all evidence taken at the investigation, the names of those who recommended the successor, names of the parties by whom the Government was represented at such investigation, with a detailed statement or all the accounts paid or to be paid by any department in connection with the aforesaid dismissal and investigation, the names of the parties who received any money or filed their accounts in connection with said investigation, and the amount awarded to or claimed by each of them.
Mr. Bourassa.-For a return showing the name of the postmaster of the parish of Lambert, county of Levis, who, it is stated, was dismissed from office since September, 1911, the reasons for such dismissal, the nature of the complaints made against him, the names of the parties who made those complaints, together with a copy of all correspondence and telegrams relating thereto, the name of the inquiring commissioner, and report of investigation, if any, and of all evidence taken at the investigation, the names of those whv lecommended the successor, names of the parties by whom the Government was represented at such investigation, with a detailed statement of all accounts paid or to be paid by any department in connection with the aforesaid dismissal and investigation, the names of the parties who received any money or filed their accounts in connection with said investigation, and the amount awarded to or claimed by each of them.
Mr. Graham.-For a copy of all papers in any way relating to the tender, original contract, and amended contract of Mr. Joseph Gosselin for the locomotive and car shops at St. Malo, Quebec, together with a copy of the advertisements for tenders, the specifications, the contract, the amended contract, reports of engineers, recommendations to Council, Orders in Council, letters, telegrams, minutes or reports of interviews, and of all other documents referring in any way to the said contract or the amendment thereof.
Mr. Emmerson.-For a copy of all reports, requests, petitions, memorials, letters, telegrams i nd other correspondence and documents relating to the removal, suspension or dismissal, by the management of the Intercolonial railway, of Warren Carter and Frederick Avard, employees in the freight department of the Intercolonial railway at Sackville, N.B.; and of all letters, telegrams and other correspondence in the Department of Railways and Canals, or in the railway offices at Moncton, or in any department of Government, addressed to the Minister of Railwaj-s and Canals, or to any other member of the Government, or to any official of the Department of Railways and Canals, or of the Intercolonial railway, by any person or persons

in the county of Westmorland, N.B., in any manner relating to said employees and to the dispensing with their services, particularly of any letters sent to F. P. Brady, general superintendent of the Intercolonial, by any party or parties in Sackville, N.B., or elsewhere, and of all replies to any such letters, correspondence or documents.
Mr. Bourassa.-For a copy of all documents, letters, petitions, telegrams and evidence heard, reports, etc., in connection with the claims of Eugene Demers and Joseph Olivier, of the parish of St. Nicholas, county of LOvis, for damages arising out of fires caused by the Intercolonial railway's locomotives; and, if investigations have been held, a copy of all evidence and documents relating thereto.
Mr. Murphy.-For	return showing the
names, salaries and grades of the private secretaries of the members of the Liberal Government on October 1, 1911; the names of the private secretaries employed from time to time by the members of the present government, and the salary and grade of each.
Mr. Kyte.-For a return showing the increase in freight rates on live stock, including horses, carried over the Intercolonial railway, by the tariff effective May 1, 1913, as compared with the tariff effective April 15, 1909, for the following distances, respectively:
Over 5 and not over 10 miles.
10	15	"44	15	20	4444	20	25	""	25	30	""	30	40	44	40	50	44	50	60	"	60	70	"	70	SO	"	80	90	**44	90	100	"	100	110	44	110	120	4414	120	130	4444	130	140	44"	140	150	4444	150	160	44

Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the procedure under which divorces are granted by Parliament and the consequent unreasonable expense thereof are so unsatisfactory, besides being prohibitive to tr>e great maioritv of the people of Canada, that the same should be taken into immediate consideration by the Government with a view to reform, during the present session.
He said: In connection with the subject of divorce, there are two separate and distinct questions which might engage the attention of the House. On the one hand, this House might be asked by an Act to extend the grounds on which divorce may be granted. The most careless perusal of this resolution will show that it has no reference whatever to anything of that kind. There is another course that might be taken by this House in connection with
divorce, and that is to consider whether or not the procedure under which divorces are granted is the most satisfactory procedure to all classes of the community, and the least expensive to those who can least afford to bear that expense. We all know that in our Dominion four provinces, namely, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and British Columbia, have jurisdiction over divorce. In the other five provinces, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, the courts have not jurisdiction; so that for the whole Dominion, other than the first named four provinces, any divorces that have been granted in this country since Confederation have been granted by this House.
It being conceded, as the fact certainly is, that divorces are granted by Parliament, it must also be conceded that they are granted either as a right or as a favour. If divorces are granted by this Parliament as a right, then certainly every man in this country should have an equal right to secure a divorce. If, on the other hand,- and I hardly imagine that any one would maintain this-divorces by this Parliament are to be granted as a favour, then certainly they should be granted to those who need the favour most, instead of, as at present, to those who need it the least. One has only to consider the experience of every one in this House to come to a speedy conclusion as to whether or not our present procedure is satisfactory. I will deal with that later on, but in the meantime I would like to point out that of all the civilized countries in the world there is but one that rivals us m our procedure, and that is poor old Ireland. Most of us have some suspicion, from items we have occasionally seen in the newspapers of late, that there is a little difference of opinion as to how Ireland should be governed in the future; but I venture to say there is no difference of opinion whatever, anywhere in the civilized world, as to whether or not Ireland has been the model government with the wisest legislation for 800 or 900 years. And yet Ireland is the only country which at all approaches our method of granting divorces.
To really understand the position we occupy and-if 1 may be pardoned for saying it-the utterly absurd and grotesque procedure we have, perhaps it may not be out ol place to remind the House of the procedure in other countries, and in other times. Up to the time of the Reformation, it is well known, there was no such thing as divorce in the western church as we understand divorce to-day. We read of

divorces being granted, a mensa et thoro, or, as we would say, a judicial separation without any right given to the parties to marry again. There was also introduced into the western church the right to have marriages, that had been validly celebrated, set aside on the ground of nullity.
I do not intend to occupy any time in discussing that question; but merely in order that we may understand what the practice has been, I will call the attention of the House to the important evidence given by Monseigneur Moyes before the Royal Commission on Divorce and Matrimonial Causes, vol. 2, page 426. Monseigneur Moyes saying that he was a canon of the archdiocese of Westminster, a prelate of the Roman Court, and that he had attended on behalf of the Catholic Church at the request of the Archbishop of Westminster. I think I can hardly be said to introduce anything contentious when, merely to give the historical reasons for it, 1 point out that prior to the Reformation and up to the present time, while divorce in our sense is absolutely unknown, there are a number of grounds, fifteen in all, on which marriages are liable to be declared null and void. Mgr. Moyes in his evidence says:
The impediments which are held by the Catholic church to be diriment or nullifying are the following:	1. Error, as to person. 2. Condition (if A marries B, a slave, believing B to be free). 3. Solemn vow of chastity or entering religious order, made before consummation of marriage. 4. Consanguinity to third degree. 5. Crime (if A during a former marriage with B has committed adultery with C, witli promise of marriage after death of B, and if A or C has attempted the life of B, the marriage of A and C is null). 6. Disparity of worship, viz., marriage of a Christian with a non-Christian. 7. Duress or violence affecting liberty of consort. 8 Holy order to which is attached obligation of chastity. 9. The bond of preceding marriage (if either party have a husband or wife still alive). 10. Public decorum (if one of the parties is solemnly or publicly betrothed to another person). 11. Madness or amentia (viz, imbecility precluding reasonable consent). 12. Affinity. 13. Clandestinity. 14. Impoteney. 15. Rape.
So that we find that in the Western Church, up to the time of the Reformation, while there were no divorces a vinculo matrimonii, there were fifteen different grounds upon which the ecclesiastical courts did declare marriages to be null and void. If there were children as a result of these marriages, inasmuch as the marriages were liable to be declared null and void, the ine"itable result was the bastardizing of the children.
I Mr. Northrup.]
In the Eastern Church, which was the Greek church, divorce was always allowed. Prior to the Reformation the church court had claimed the right to deal exclusively with matrimonial causes, and the state throughout western Europe allowed this claim, so that all causes having to do with matrimonial disputes were tried before the ecclesiastical courts. After the Reformation in England it became impossible that the old procedure or trial in ecclesiastical courts should be continued, and there was no procedure open to the people of England in order to obtain divorce. After a time it was seen that Parliament might deal with this question, as with any other subject, and it became the custom in England, and continued until the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 was passed, that divorces could be obtained by Act of Parliament. Subsequently rules were passed by which it was necessary, first, to obtain a divorce a mensa et thoro, a judicial separation from the offending partner, and then to issue a writ and obtain a verdict for damages against the co-respondent, or to satisfy Parliament that there were good and sufficient reasons why that course had not been taken. At last, in 1857, it became evident that the course of procedure up to that time was unsatisfactory. Many attempts had been made to change that course, but although practically everybody agreed that the course -was absurd and abominably expensive, yet, with that English unreadiness to move, it was as hard to cause a change in the law in that respect as it was to cause, a change in the law under which people were hanged for over one hundred various offences. At last Mr. Justice Maule gave his famous sentence for bigamy at Warwick, which, having convulsed the nation, led to the law as they have it in England to-day. I will take the liberty of reading this sentence pronounced by Mr. Justice Maule, inasmuch as it had such a tremendous effect upon the public sentiment of England.


Wilfrid Laurier: What year?


William Barton Northrup: 1845, I think.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is the case.


William Barton Northrup: A man had been convicted of bigamy, and this was the sentence pronounced by the judge upon the prisoner:
Prisoner, you have been convicted upon clear evidence; you have intermarried with another woman, your lawful wife being still alive. you have committed the crime of bigamy. you tell

out, for I remember a divorce not very long ago passed by this Parliament without the shadow or tittle of evidence of adultery- but theoretically the assumption is that divorce can only be granted by this Parliament on the ground of adultery. Still, being a matter of legislation in Canada, if a writer were describing the grounds on which divorce could be granted by this Parliament, he would have to admit that, whatever we might do practically, however we may find ourselves bound by the rules in that respect, legally and constitutionally we can grant a divorce on any grounds, no matter how trifling. That, in itself, I submit, is rather an objectionable feature.
In the province of Ontario, and I believe in all the provinces, if the husband has suddenly disappeared and has not been heard of for seven years, there is a legal presumption of death. After seven years, his wife, or children if he has not a wife, can apply to the courts and they divide the property he left among those who would be entitled to it in case he was actually dead. If his w'ife, relying on that presumption of death, and having obtained her share of the property as his widow, should see fit to marry again, originally she would be liable to bigamy if the husband turned up, no matter how honestly she may have believed that he had been dead. Seeing the utter absurdity and injustice of that, our Criminal Code has been amended, so that now, after seven years' absence of the husband, the wife, having good reason to think the husband dead, if she should marry again, would not be liable under the Criminal Code for bigamy. But see the position the unfortunate woman is placed in. It is said here that the judge will take judicial notice of the husband's death, and will divide his property, and that his wife can marry again, and be perfectly free from any penalty under the criminal law; but yet if the husband should turn up, or if evidence should be given to show that he had been alive after her second marriage, we would condemn that poor woman to the -shame of being the mistress of the man who she thought was her husband. And what have you done to her unfortunate children, if there are any, of the marriage? Speaking as Canadians, and claiming to be among the freest and greatest liberty-loving people in the world, can any Canadian say, that is right? If a woman such as that in good faith marries again, after the courts of the land have said her husband was dead, can -any man in this House say that it is fair that she should be treated as the mistress 
of the man whom she married, and that her unfortunate children, born within the second marriage, -should be bastardized by the law of the land?
I heard of a case recently from the province of British Columbia, which illustrates one of the absurdities of our law. A lady married a man who was the manager of a bank; she lived with him as his wife, and they had three children. He induced her father, who was a wealthy man, to endorse [DOT]for him, and one day he disappeared apparently from the face of the earth. He was -away for seven years, and then the lady consulted a lawyer in British Columbia to ask him if she could have a divorce. He was obliged to advise her that she could not. In British Columbia they have a divorce court, and, so far 'as the expense went, s'he might have applied there. Here we have judicial proceedings, and she might have applied here, but the difficulty was that the man had simply disappeared, -and there was no evidence that he was dead. A friend suspecting that the man might have returned to the place in England whence he came, spent some money engaging detectives to trace him, and they found he was living in England with another woman whom he represented to be his wife. What could be done in British Columbia for the unfortunate legal wife? Under the laws of British Columbia she could only obtain a divorce on certain grounds, such .as were provided in England under the original 1857 Act. Under that Ac-t the husband could obtain a divorce on the ground of adultery alone, but the wife could not obtain a divorce unless there was adultery coupled with cruelty. That was the law introduced in the province of British Columbia. Some years later, owing to the hardships that arose in England from that law, an amendment was brought in so that desertion for two years would take the place of cruelty,. and if the adultery could be proved, together with desertion for two years, the unfortunate woman could obtain relief. But that did not apply in British Columbia. Therefore, the position of this woman was, that although she could get the evidence to show that her husband was living in England with another woman, she could not apply before the courts of British Columbia because she had not the proof of cruelty to help her out. And she could not come to this Parliament, because a poor woman with three children, [DOT] earning her own living, and supporting her children in British Columbia, was not in a position to file a petition

with this House; to pay detectives in the old country, to bring them out here to prove her case, and go to the expense that would bd necessary to satisfy a committee of t(hi s Parliament that she was entitled to a divorce. There are many cases such as that.
I have had, in my own experience, cases which show the injustice of the present procedure. One man from my own part of the country came to me saying that his wife had eloped with another man and was living with him in a town in the United States, and he asked me what he could do.
' I had to tell him frankly that the only thing I could see for him to do was to get rich, in the first place, because this country did not recognize any right on the part of a poor man to have a divorce. This unfortunate husband was left with four or five little children, from eight to twelve ytears of age, and what possible justification could there be for imposing the penalty we do impose on these little children, by practically forbidding the father to obtain a divorce. In circumstances such as these, with a man earning a couple of dollars a day and living in a little house, it is perfectly evident that he cannot afford to hire a housekeeper to look after his house and his children. If he does bring in a woman for that purpose, the latter end may be worse than the first. On the other hand, if he does not do so, these little children, left to grow up without a mother's protecting care, stand a bad chance in the world.
I think the members of this House will appreciate the fact that we have a duty to perform. We are really trustees for the people; and if we allow a state of affairs to continue which is felt to be an injustice by any portion of the people, we are contrib-ut.ng something to increase the unfortunate unrest which at present is so rife throughout the whole world. It is idle to ignore the fact that the world has never been so beset by perplexing problems as it is at the present time, and among them the social and the industrial problems are perhaps among the greatest and most perplexing.
Putting the case on no other ground, leaving out of sight for the moment the uniortunate victim of an unhappy matrimonial alliance, leaving out of sight the little children who are certainly in no way to blame, but who must to a certain extent pay the penalty, looking at the question from the standpoint of the state, is it in the interest of a young country like Canada, with a population rapidly increasing by
outsiders coming in from other lands, that a feeling of dissatisfaction, of injustice should pervade the minds of a large portion of the people who feel that others can have what they cannot have? I believe that it would really be better and fairer either to forbid all divorces or to make the procedure such that all would be able to obtain advantage of what, as I said a few moment-ago, is either a right or a favour.
If a man or a woman desires a divorce from this Parliament, the first step is to advertise for six months in the Canada Gazette. Can anybody imagine anything more absolutely absurd than that? What conceivable benefit is to be derived by advertising for six months in the- Canada Gazette? Of course, a divorce Bill is a Private Bill, and in the majority of Private Bills for charters of railway companies and corporations, one can quite understand how it would be proper that notice be given to all parties interested. In a divorce case, inasmuch as you have to serve the party interested with a notice of procedure, and the man or woman who has run away with somebody else is not very apt to while away the long hours of a dreary winter in another land by reading the Canada Gazette, that seems an absurd step.
The party has then to advertise in two papers in the county in which he or she resides. Again I ask for what purpose?
The proceedings here are so ex-9 p.m. pensive-$210 is the first item to be paid-that a poor person practically cannot obtain a divorce.
Then there is another matter that is known to every hon. member. Could there possibly be a greater scandal, could there by anything more calculated to bring our proceedings and ourselves under contempt, than the amount of lobbying that every member knows goes on in connection with divorce Bills? Is it not a fact that the senators and the members of this House are beset by those who are interested in the decisions to be given under divorce petitions? Only last session-and this perhaps brought the question to my mind more closely than it had been brought before-I happened, in room 16, to speak of a certain divorce which was before the House. I spoke rather unfavourably as to the prospects of one party to the divorce. When I arrived home on the following Sunday, I found that the fair petitioner was in my parlour to interview me. We are supposed to be sitting here as judges. Can one conceive of a state of judicial procedure in

which it is considered the proper thing for the litigant, particularly if she is young and pretty, to intercede for justice with the judge between the sitttings of the court?
After the petition is brought into the Senate, it is referred to a committee of nine members, three of whom are lawyers. While the procedure, as I have said before, is most absurd and grotesque, I think it is only fair to say a word in commendation of the Chairman who for so many years has so faithfully, so energetically and so well presided over the Senate Committee. I believe that Senator Kirchhoffer, who this session has been obliged, through what I hope is only temporary indisposition, to allow another gentleman to take his place, has presided over the committee for seventeen years. During that period I believe that *only one Bill, that came from the Senate Committee to the Senate, eventually did not pass, and I believe that one Bill that come to this House last session did not pass.
The work of that committee has been onerous even if it has been rather absurd. We all know that the Senate has frequent and lengthy adjournments. A divorce petition is set down for hearing, and when the witnesses arrive from Winnipeg, Vancouver or Halifax-not from Halifax, because Nova Scotia has a divorce court of its own-it is found that the Senate has adjourned and will not sit for a couple of weeks. Then the Chairman has to hunt around and get a quorum to save the people the extra expense that might be incurred. Thus the committee has to sit not only while the House is in session, but while the House is adjourned, in order to carry on its business. If it had not been for the care, the wise legal ability of the Chairman of the Senate, the abuses that would naturally flow, and that to a certain extent have flowed from our system, would have become so intolerable long ago that the present state of the law would have been entirely changed.
I do not desire to occupy the time of the House longer, because it is not my object to lay down a remedy. I am asking the Government of the day, asking the House, asking any members who take an interest in this most important question, to endeavour to solve a difficulty which certainly exists at the present time. Perhaps I may be laughed at for saying this, but it seems to me that, if I am right in the views that I have expressed, this is a subject which members on both sides of the House might fairly and honestly discuss and for which they might try to work out a remedy that not only would be just to many of our 
fellow citizens, but would save a great many heart burnings through those feeings of injustice which certainly exist at the present time. I hope the Government will take the matter into consideration. If the Government and the House are perfectly satisfied that the present system of procedure is the best that can be devised, and that in no way can a simpler or cheaper procedure be discovered, then by all means let us cling .to our present procedure. But if there is any way in which the procedure can be simplified and the expense lessened, I beg of the Government and of the House to do their best to attain that end.
In conclusion, I would like to say that in the line which I am taking in this case, I am following exactly the line taken by one of the commissioners appointed under this Royal Commission in 1910-' our trusty and entirely beloved counsellor Cosmo Gordon, Archbishop of York, Primate of England and Meropolitan.' When I take the view expressed by the Archbishop of York, the Primate of England, I at all events cannot be accused of trying to stir up strife. On the contrary, I am trying to obtain justice if possible. Let me point out-because the matter may be referred to later on and may not be represented as it should b*- that this Matrimonal Causes Commission was appointed in 1909, and I am sure it would be instructive to look for a moment at ^ some of the reasons why it was appointed. I read the following frem the warrant of their appointment:
Whereas we have deemed it expedient that a commission should forthwith issue to inquire into the present state of the law and the ad-mmstration thereof in divorce or matrimonial causes and applications for separation orders, especially with regard to the position of the poorer classes in relation thereto.
Then it goes on:
And we do hereby empower you to make an interim report with a view to making such suggestions as you may recommend of enabling such steps as you may recommend to be taken for the redress of any hardship from which, in your opinion, the poorer classes may suffer under the existing law and administration.
The object of this commission was twofold. In the first place it was to ascertain whether or not additional or further ground for divorce should be allowed. With that I have nothing whatever to do; it has no part or lot in my motion. The other object of the commission was to ascertain what relief could be given to the poorer classes, and it is this phase of the matter with which I wish particularly to deal. Majority and minority reports were

made by this commission, the Archbishop of York, Sir William R. Anson and Sir Lewis T. Dibdin signing the minority report. The differences of opinion between these gentlemen and the gentlemen of the majority was based exclusively on the question as to whether or not the grounds for divorce should be added to or increased. The Archbishop of York, Sir William Anson and Sir Lewis T. Dibdin dissented, making a minority report as to increasing the grounds. On the other point, the propriety of lessening the expense to the poorer classes, they were entirely in accord with the majority of the commission. So that, although both majority and minority reports were submitted, the whole commission, including the former judge of the Divorce Court and tne Archbishop of York, the Primate of England, were heartily in accord with the terms of the resolution I have moved to-night. I should like to read briefly from page 172 of the minority report the views of the Archbishop of York, which I consider to be very appropriate in this connection:
The question submitted to the present Royal Commission is, in effect, whether the statute law made by Parliament in 1857 needs reconsideration either as to the grounds of divorce, or as to courts. The nation more emphatically than in 1857 now includes persons of every variety of creed and of no creed, all of whom have a right to be considered by Parliament in any amendment of the English diyorce law, and it seems to us to follow that in framing our report we are bound to treat the question on the broad grounds of the real interests of the whole community and with reference to the actual conditions of our day. We do not therefore express an opinion as to whether the action of the legislature in 1857-
That is, in establishing the court.
-was wise or unwise, or as to whether the welfare of the nation has been promoted by the divorce statute of that year. The repeal of the existing divorce act, even if desirable, is not practicable.
The Archbishop, therefore, takes exactly the view which I take. Personally, he was opposed to divorce, but, realizing that legislation permitting divorce was in existence, and finding it practically impossible to repeal it, he took what I contend to be the sensible view, and said: Whilst I should not have approved it originally, since the Act is there and cannot be repealed, let us make it as near perfect as possible. I wish to quote again from the minority report:
With regard to the question as to whether greater facilities are necessary to enable persons of slender means living at considerable distance from London to exercise their statutory rights
under the divorce acts, it is of course absolutely incontestable that no one ought to be deprived of his legal rights merely by poverty. Further, the evidence has in our opinion established that the centralization of all divorce business in London and the cost of divorce proceedings have in fact prevented a considerable number of poor persons and persons of small means from bringing suits in the divorce court, which, but for the expense they might have brought successfully.
For any one who wishes to take the trouble to read it, there are here heartrending accounts of the effects of the law upon poorer families. The deserted husband or wife, as the case might be, being unable to marry again, the usual results, the children of course paying the penalty, came about.
I shall not further occupy the attention of the House, but will conclude by urging the Government to take this matter into their serious and speedy consideration. I desire also to urge upon the members of this House the fact that this is not a political question; it is a subject which, to my mind, should appeal to every representative of the people. We must not forget that every member of this House, no matter whence he comes, does not represent only the people who elected him, for that is not the principle of our constitution. According to our constitution, theoretically every voter in Canada comes to Ottawa to make the laws, but inasmuch as practically that is impossible, the country has been divided into constituencies, each of which is allowed to send one or more representatives to Ottawa to represent all the people of this country. Therefore, every member sitting in this House, I care not on which side of the House he sits, is a representative of the injured poor of this country who are deprived of the right of redress which their wealthier neighbours have. I plead with the Government and I plead with hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, not only for the sake of the injured persons; not only for the sake of the unfortunate little children who pay the heaviest penalty of all, but for the sake of society in Canada, that we may give one proof at least of the fact that the members of this House are prepared to do what is right and fair and just by the people of (Canada, (irrespective of their financial position.


Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (West Peterborough) :: As a very unwilling member
of the Divorce Committee, I should like to say a word or two with regard to this resolution. It seems to me-and I think

I am a fairly impartial observer, being an unmarried man-that it is very hard to reason sensibly about this matter, because we regard marriage as a contract, and if it be a legal contract it should be dissoluble as other contracts are; and therefore really not a marriage at all; by mutual consent the parties could go their way. But of course the contract means something more than this. There are two ways, it seems, of solving the situation. One is by divorce. Up to the time of the divorce the people are married; but where there is nullification of the marriage, it is found that they have never been married at all, and the woman is declared to have been a common prostitute from the beginning. That is what nullification means, and you can put me down as against nullification. And what is divorce? Suing for the privilege of marrying again, if you please. The parties concerned are at liberty to get an order of protection or separation from the courts; simply because they want to get married again they appeal in this heartrending way to the people of this country. Therefore I say there is no justification for divorce, and put me down as against divorce. My experience on the Divorce Committee, which reminds me of what 1 would call scavenging proceedings, has been unhappy in the extreme, and I would like to be liberated therefrom, and at once, if possible. T can see no justification for the perpetuation of any such mockeries of the marriage ceremony.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have listened with great attention to my hon. friend the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Northrup), who, as usual, has presented his case with that ability and legal acumen which is well known to members of this House.
I would not, under ordinary circumstances, have thought it proper to address the House on this subject because it is well known that, with other members of this House, I belong to a church which does not consider divorce and remarriage as a result of divorce as permissible. You, Sir, will have noticed that when a Bill granting a divorce, comes from the Senate to this House, the members who belong to my church do not take part in the debate and do not vote. I do not care to present to the House any religious plea on this question, and I hasten to say that I do not intend to preach or to dogmatize. Certainly the Roman Catholic church, to which I have the honour to belong, is not the only one to take the stand which it 
takes; the Anglican church in this country is opposed to the consequence of divorce, namely remarriage. My hon. friend, however, has made a strong case from his point of view, and he has urged upon the Government the necessity of bringing about reform. He stated that this country was rapidly filling up with foreigners, immigrants coming from all lands, and that the time had come when equal justice should be handed to the poor as well as to the rich. I agree with my hon. friend that immigrants are pouring into this country from all parts of the *world. We are in the process of building up our young country. But may I be permitted to say that there is more than the material aspect to that process of building up Canada, there is a moral aspect to it which must not be disregarded? In my humble judgment, speaking for a large number of Canadians, I believe, of both races and of diverse creeds, we should not enlarge the facilities to grant divorces and in this respect 1 beg to radically differ with my able and genial friend from Hastings. We boast that this is a white man's country. Why not proclaim that this is also a Christian country? Should we not on a question of this nature, profit by the experience of other peoples, of other nations, not too far from our owrn borders?
Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has made an historical survey of the subject. He has expounded very ably the custom which was followed before the Reformation in the Western church and in the Eastern church; and he has explained how it came that in English Canonical Courts, divorce decrees were granted, then Jater on by Act of Parliament, and, since 1857, if I mistake not, by regular divorce courts.	May I be permitted to go
also to fundamentals and to express the views held by not only the members of my church, but by the members of various Christian churches? Sir, in the marriage ceremony no mention is made of possible divorce. Each party swears solemnly to the other, ' for better, for worse, till death do us part.' If adultery be held to dissolve marriage it would lead to relative promiscuity since either party might remarry many times. The knowledge that they are not allowed to divorce and remarry will always tend to induce husbands and wives to minimize differences which they otherwise might magnify into occasions for separation. The risk of an agreement between the two that each should allow full liberty to the other is not one of which the law can take account, but against which

public opinion may be expected to express itself very strongly. Nothing can be worse for children, for homes and for country, than the knowledge that divorce can be easily granted. Divorce-and I come back to the point which I made a moment ago that we should profit by the experience of our near-by neighbours-divorce has been most disastrous in the United States, where each concession has led to another worse concession. Now, I have said on other occasions that on political questions we were often asked to ignore what we could learn from the United States and sometimes that, on the contrary, we were asked to follow what the United States were teaching us. The example of the United States in matters of divorce is one which we should not foilow, as it is simply appalling in its consequences. Far be it from my mind to attempt to libel the American republic. I think it is Edmund Burke who once said that you could not libel a whole people. But divorce in the United States has become not only a scandal but a curse. This is admitted by all churches and by all creeds in the United States. It is agreed and it is admitted by all good law-abiding citizens. I have under my hand some statistics which were published not very long ago, in December, 1911, upon this subject. I had the census reports of the United States but I left them in my library and have here now only this clipping from the Chicago Tribune. This shows that, according to the census of the United States, there has been in that country between the years 1887 and 1906, a total of 1,045,625 divorces. During the same period 12,832,000 marriage licenses were issued. That is to say, you have to-day in the United States one divorce for each twelve. Am I not right in saying that this facility to obtain divorce decrees has become a curse with our near neighbours the Americans? So much so, that not later than the last session of Congress, Senator Ransdell, of Louisiana, introduced a Bill to prevent divorced persons from marrying again. When introducing his Bill, Senator Ransdell said that there were twice as many divorces in the United States as in- the rest of Christendom. He said that the remedy he proposed would appear very radical indeed, but that the disease was deep-seated. It had reached an acute stage and affected all classes. Let me remind my hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Northrup) that the divorce courts of the United States are accessible to the poorer classes as well as to the rich, and with what result-one divorce out of every
twelve marriages, as I said a moment ago. Senator Ransdell gives the following figures: In 1867 there were 9,937 divorces or 27 per 100,000 of population; in 1906, forty years later, there were 72,062 divorces or 86 per 100,000 of population. That meant that there were seven times more divorces in 1906 than in 1867, or 319 per cent, and the rate has been increasing since 1906. I read in the last census report of the United States the following:
The divorce rate, like the velocity of a falling body, is constantly increasing. The enormous increase in divorce revealed by these statistics naturally raises the question: How far this increase is to be attributed to growth in population? The rate of increase in divorce is far greater than the rate of increase in population.
President Roosevelt made the following comment on the census statistics:
This is one of the most unpleasant and dangerous features of our American life: the loosening of the marital tie among the old native American families.
My hon. friend has given a list of civilized countries which have established special divorce courts after having promulgated divorce laws. Among those countries he mentioned France. I do not pretend to know much about the other countries mentioned by my hon. friend, except those which are a part of the British Empire, but I have some knowledge of what is taking pla.ce in France through the reading of books on history, economics and social questions. The number rf divorces in France is, at the present time, causing grave alarm and apprehension. As my hon. friend well knows, there is no state church in France. The Government does not pretend to be friendly even to the church, which for centuries was the dominant church in that country. The statesmen of France-many of them indifferent in matters religious, many of them free thinkers, some of them belonging to a different faith than that of the majority of the French people-these statesmen, actually, are perturbed over the consequences of the law in regard to divorce which was adopted in 1884. In France, as in England, the opinions on the question of divorce v. ere during the last century quite chaotic. Before the revolutionary period around 1789, we find that the ecclesiastical court, as in England before the Reformation, was the only one to take cognizance of matrimonial Cases, but after the revolution the question of divorce was dealt with as it was in England at the time of the Reformation. Divorce decrees were granted during the

Canon V, Marriage and Divorce.
(Passed Session IV, Journal pp. 25, 28, 1905)
No clergymen within the jurisdiction of the Church of England in Canada shall solemnize a marriage between persons, either of whom shall have been divorced from one who is living at tho time.
I am sure I will hurt the feelings of no one. body in this House when I say that not only as a Eoman Catholic but as a Canadian, I, together with many others belonging to different churches, oppose any widened facilities to our existing divorce procedure. If I had my own way I would restrict separation as it is granted in the province of Quebec; that is to say, without any faculty of remarriage.
The State is deeply concerned in this question; the state protects family life, defines and defends the authority of parents over their children, the rights of children to the care of their parents, the obligation of husband and wife towards each other. The State, therefore, has a concern of its own in the peace of the community, the welfare of the family, the rearing of healthy children and the training of them to he good citizens. In my humble judgment, divorce and remarriage as a consequence, endanger all that. We like-especially my imperialist friends, and I have many friends amongst the imperialists-we like, to cite the example of ancient Rome. Indeed, we all admire the splendours of Rome and the genius of the Romans, but we must not forget that Rome was pagan, and that in pagan Rome repudiation and divorce were rampant. We know from the most illustrious historian of Rome, Gibbon, that the decay of the Roman Empire can be traced to the laxity of its morals. Marriage, in Rome, had become a bond which could be broken with such deplorable facility that it is said this inscription was found on a tombstone: 'Conjugi piae, inclytae univirae,' which, freely translated, means:
' Remarkable fact: here lies a pious wife who had but one husband.'
It seems to me that the granting of any further facilities to obtain divorce would be to revert to pagan Rome; to revert to paganism itself. I would rather follow the teaching of my church and the teaching of the Anglican church in Canada, which is comprised in the precept of Our Lord:
' What, therefore, God hath joined together let not man put asunder.'
Speaking of old Roman Imperialism, I might be permitted to quote what John Bright said about this mania of always borrowing from old pagan Rome. Speaking at Birmingham in 1857, John Bright said:

Now, I do not think that examples taken from pagan, sanguinary Rome, are proper models for the imitation of a Christian country, nor would I limit my hopes of the greatness of England even to the long duration of eight hundred years. But what is Rome now? The great city is dead. A poet has described her as the ' lone mother of dead empires.' Her language even, is dead. Her very tombs are empty; the ashes of her most illustrious citizens are dispersed.
The Scipios' tomb contains no ashes now. Vet, am I asked, I, who am one of the legislators of a Christian country, to measure my policy hy the policy of ancient and pagan Rome!
I believe there is no permanent greatness to a nation except it he based upon morality.
In conclusion, I think that the duty of Parliament at the present hour is not to increase the facilities for obtaining divorce decrees, but the duty of Parliament, the duty of the legislators, in the best interest of Canada and her sons, is to surround with greater safeguards the sanctity of marriage. The example which has been set by the United States on this vexed question is one rather to be dreaded than imitated by a British country, nay, hy a Christian country.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is not my intention to follow the line of argument of my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), because I do not think the motion of the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Northrup) raises the question of whether divorces should be granted in Canada or not.
Were I at liberty to make a law as I would like to see it made, I am rather of the opinion that I would be entirely in harmony with my hon. friend from Rouville. . I have had some experience in divorce cases, and I must say that they have always seemed repugnant to me. I believe that they are repugnant to 'every solicitor or counsel who is unfortunate enough to have anything to do with them.	I am rather inclined to
take the opinion referred to by my hon. friend from Hastings a short time ago, which was voiced by the Archbishop of York, in a report which he made to the British Parliament, while deprecating the granting of divorces, yet he was afraid that the system had obtained such a foothold in the country that it would he impossible to repeal the law.
We might as well face conditions as they are in Canada at the present time. I do not believe that it is possible to pass a law entirely abolishing the granting of divorces in Canada. I do not mean to say

that we have not the legal right to do so, but I am rather of the opinion that the Archbishop of York was voicing the sentiment in England which has a pretty strong hold in Canada to-day. Certainly, however, were I given the right to frame a law for the whole of Canada, I should not extend the well known grounds for divorce which are supposed to exist in the Senate, and which we know are carried into effect in the four provinces in which there are divorce courts. As I apprehend the matter, the real object of the hon. member for Hastings is that this Parliament should divest itself not of the right but of the fact of granting divorces and should constitute courts in the several provinces to take charge of them, the same as there are in the three Maritime provinces and in the province of British Columbia.
My hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) has quoted some statistics in order to show that in the provinces where divorces are granted, there is a greater number than there is in the rest of Canada. That is true to some extent, but when you look into the statistics, you will be surprised to see how few divorces are granted in the Maritime provinces as compared with the rest of Canada. I have before me to-night the Canada Year Book of 1912. I do not think there are any later statistics upon this question. I find in the province of New Brunswick, which lies just alongside of the State of Maine, a state in which I believe the question of granting divorces without law or reason has been carried to as great an extreme as it has been in the State of Nevada, a state in which divorces are granted simply for incompatibility of temperament, for any fanciful device which any man or woman may put forward in order to obtain a divorce-in the province of New Brunswick lying for one hundred miles along the border of the state of Maine, and in a province in which one would think that the people might to some extent be influenced toy the social conditions existing among their neighbours across the boundary line, only 115 divorces have been granted since 1868, or in 44 years an average of about 2-6 divorces per year. It is true that during the years 1908, 1909, 1910 and 1911 there were a few more than the average. In 1908, there were 5; in 1909, 6; in 1910, 5; and in 1911,
6.	In 1912 the number dropped to 4. If you take the list right up to 1868, you will find that it runs for a few years ' no divorces granted,' , then it increases 1, 2, 53
3,	4, and then it decreases back
10 p.m. to one again. In other words, the number of divorces granted during all this period of time has not increased to any appreciable extent. The increases have been no greater' than the natural increase in population. Yet this is in a province lying for a hundred miles along the boundary line of a state in which divorces are granted for any reason which two people might put forward who wanted a dissolution of the bonds of matrimony.
I do not think that these statistics will bear out the fears entertained by hon. members who are opposed to regulating the granting of these divorces to a provincial court. I am afraid that any members who entertain those fears do not realize the difference between the method of granting divorces in our courts of law and the method in the Senate of Canada. I mention the Senate, because we know that, as a matter of fact, the whole question as to whether or not a divorce shall be granted is decided in the Senate Committee, although pro forma it has to go through this House. I think my hon. friend from Hastings stated that only one case that was favourably reported upon by the Senate Committee was refused by the Senate, and only one case that was passed by the Senate was refused by this House.
I do not wish to, say anything against the hon. members of, the Senate who act as judges in these matters. When you consider what a great majority of the members of that committee are not even professional men but men drawn from the ordinary walks of life, it is somewhat wonderful that they arrive at as true a conception of the evidence as they do. No doubt a large proportion of the justice of these decisions is due to the excellent judgment of the Chairman, who has occupied that position for so many years. Those hon. gentlemen of the House of the legal profession who have taken the trouble to read the evidence taken in the divorce cases which come before the Upper House- and I personally have read nearly every case that has come up during my experience as a member of the House-will agree with me that many divorces are granted on evidence which would not be entertained for a moment in the divorce courts of the Maritime provinces or, perhaps, of the province of British Columbia. In the divorce court the hardest case to win is the undefended case, for the simple reason that it is the duty of the divorce judge to take the position of protector of the rights of the Crown. In such a case the judge al-



most intuitively takes the ground that there is collusion, and that it is his duty to see that no injustice is done.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there a King's Proctor in New Brunswick?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is not, but the
judge assumes the duties of King's Proctor, and it is the duty of the judge to see that no divorce is granted except on the strongest evidence. Knowing the law to be as it is, solicitors naturally inform their clients that there is only one ground upon which they can obtain divorce, and that they must produce evidence to that effect. Nothing but absolute evidence of adultery will do in these courts, and solicitors naturally advise their clients that it is useless to proceed with the case, and that it is a costly experiment, even in the Maritime provinces. I do not believe there is a solicitor here from the provinces of New Brunswick or Nova Scotia who has not been approached by many persons every year with requests for the institution of divorce proceedings, and who has been obliged to tell them that there is no use in their putting their money in it. The principle of granting divorces is acknowledged by this Parliament and by every province of Canada to be correct.


An hon. MEMBER:: Except in Quebec.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not agree with that; I say that the principle of granting of divorces is accepted in the province of Quebec, as it is in Ontario and New Brunswick. I am free to admit-and I give them credit for it-that the dominant church in the province of Quebec has set its face against divorce, and I am against it practically as much as they are. It must be admitted that all over Canada the law provides for the granting of divorce. Admitting that to be the principle of the law, I say there is no reason why this cumbersome, expensive, unfair and discriminatory method of granting divorce should be continued. Why allow the rich man or the rich woman to come to Parliament and obtain a divorce, and deny the same privilege to the poor man or the poor woman? I have never prosecuted a divorce case through the Parliament of Canada, but I have been told that it practically involves an expenditure of $1,000. In the provinces it can be done for $100 and in many cases, probably for less. If it be right to grant divorces, then I submit that it is unfair and discriminating so to provide that the rich person can take advantage of the law, and that the poor person, because he has not $1,000 to invest in it, cannot do so.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend, of course, does not mean that where it is necessary to obtain witnesses in a foreign country, possibly at a great distance from the place where the proceedings are instituted, divorce can be procured in the Maritime provinces for $100. I have seen divorce cases in the province of Nova Scotia costing, I venture to say, more, than any divorce case that ever went through the Senate.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am fully aware of that; I think I know enough about the cost of proceedings in the courts to know that you cannot send to foreign countries and get witnesses for $100. But that is not the ordinary class of witnesses usually called upon to testify in the provincial courts. The great majority of witnesses in these cases are drawn from the immediate districts in which the litigants live. I am speaking now not of extraordinary but of ordinary cases. The first divorce case I ever had anything to do with must have cost the parties at least $3,000, and they never got a decision from the judge, as he went off the bench-my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries knows the case to which I refer. The matter was brought up in another case, and finally the divorce was granted. Strange to say, it was the husband who brought the action in the first instance and the wife in the second. However, I am speaking only oi the average case, and contending that if you admit the principle of divorce you ought not to grant it to a rich man and deny it to a poor man-and that is the result of the law as it is administered in Canada to-day, excepting the lour provinces in which there are divorce courts.
I realize that this is a somewhat delicate subject. I realize that there are many members of this House who feel that because of their conscientious convictions they ought not to vote for any change in the law. I appeal to those gentlemen and ask them to place themselves in the position of the Archbishop of York, whose very important report was referred to by the hon. member for Hastings. Let hon. gentlemen make judges of themselves to-night, and placing themselves in the position of the reverend Archbishop, they will come to the conclusion that if we are going to maintain this principle, we should put the right to enjoy the operation of the law within the reach of the poorest people of the country as well as of the richest. I think the hon. member for Hastings very properly excluded from his resolution any

word or sentiment which would raise the debatable question whether divorce should be granted; he has tried to include in his motion only such provisions as affect the machinery by which divorce should be granted. He is asking this Parliament to give to the ordinary courts of the country the right to carry on in a proper manner that which I am afraid is, in many instances, being carried on by the Parliament of Canada in an improper way. I do not think we will be doing violence to the conscientious beliefs of any class of people or any religious denomination in Canada by passing the resolution which my hon. friend has proposed to-night. I am satisfied that if this resolution carries, and the members of this House, regardless ol politics, apply themselves diligently to the matter, there will be no difficulty in devising a law which will do violence to the principles of no one, and which will do greater justice to the ordinary litigant of this country than is possible under the present system of granting divorces. *


Charles Joseph Doherty: I rise principally for the purpose of pointing out something that appears to me to have been overlooked, or at all events not to have been clearly put forward by the hon. gentleman who moved this resolution, and with regard to which I think the hon. member who has just taken his seat-I say it with all respect-seems to be under a misapprehension. If I felt called upon to discuss the general question whether there should be a divorce law or whether this Parliament should take steps to facilitate the obtaining of divorce in this country, I think I might very fairly satisfy myself with endorsing what has been said by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux).
My reason for rising is to point out that this motion, while it speaks, in terms, merely of the procedure under which divorces are granted, involves, for the obtaining of the amelioration of the procedure suggested by the hon. gentleman who moves it-and, if I understand him, endorsed and approved by the hon. member who has just taken his ..oat-the enactment of a substantive law creating in those provinces in which to-day there are no divorce courts, and, more than no divorce courts, no divorce laws, creating by law a right to divorce and prescribing the cause or causes which wiP entitle persons subjected to that law to divorce.
The hon. gentleman who has just sat 53i
down is, as I understand it at all events, mistaken when he says that we recognize the principle of divorce in the law of this country. I understand perfectly that in those provinces which have divorce courts and which have also a substantive law which those courts can administer and apply, prescribing the causes giving the right to divorce, the principle of divorce is recognized by the law. But in the five provinces where those conditions do not exist, not only the courts have not jurisdiction to pronounce divorces but there is no law under which anybody is entitled to a divorce; and if this Parliament confined itself to giving jurisdiction to hear divorce cases to courts in those provinces, those courts would sit with no law to apply. You cannot, to any' purpose, confide to the court the procedure -to use the word of ihe motion-by which divorces are to be obtained, until you have first made a substantive law to which that procedure is going to apply.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Wherein is the difference between the granting of divorce for specific grounds and giving to another body the right to grant the divorce on the same ground?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This Parliament, to use the expression of the hon. member, grants divorce on a particular ground, passes one Act for one individual, and why does it do it? Because that individual has come to it and said:	I want to be an exception to the
general law. We talk about coming to Parliament to obtain divorces and we talk about the procedure by which divorces are granted; but the whole operation is a legislative Act, and when a man comes to Parliament, on the face of his application he does not ask for a Bill to divorce anybody, but he asks for an Act for the relief of so and so; and relief from what? From an obligation that the general law imposes upon him. In those provinces where there is no divorce court there is equally no divorce law, and the general law of those provinces, I have no hesitation in saying, does not know divorce. Most assuredly in the province I come from the law does not know divorce, and it is because there is no law in force that persons, seeking it require special legislation. Let me speak of my own province-although I have no doubt I shall be borne out by lawyers from the other provinces-the man who comes here, say from the province of Quebec, and asks this Parliament for a divorce, is asking to be made an exception to the law. He comes here because, by law, he has no

right to a divorce. If by law he had a right to a divorce, it would naturally follow that that would be .a right enforceable in a court. The reason why people have to come here is not because the courts have not jurisdiction; it is because there is no law which the courts could administer if they had the amplest jurisdiction-. So what I want to point out is that this is not a motion involving a question of mere procedure; it is a motion which, in view of the speech of the hon. gentleman who introduced it, involves voting for the creation of a substantive divorce law. I understood the hon. gentleman who just sat down to say that if he were to-day in the position of being called upon to enact a substantive divorce law and had power to do it, he would be disposed to adopt such a law as the hon. member for Rou-ville (Mr. Lemieux) thinks ought to be adopted. If that is the sort of law that the hon. member would be disposed to adopt, the law had better stay precisely where it is, because, as regards the provinces which have not divorce courts, the law to-day does not recognise the principle of divorce. If there is inequality resulting from the fact that some people come here and get private legislation that makes a law for them and takes them out of the operation of the general law, it is not because the law is unequal. .Before the law in these provinces, everybody's marriage is equally indissoluble; but this Parliament, having legislative poweT, may legislate that people who, by the law of the country, are married, and united in the bonds of an indissoluble marriage, shall be unmarried; that is all.
I understood the hon. member who moved the motion to state that he thought it would be better that there should be no divorces at all than that we should have the present unequal system. I quite agree with him that it would be better that there should be no divorces at all; but when he talks of our having an unequal system, the inequality is not the result of the unequal system; it is the result of our having no system at all, and the result of a fact which we cannot alter, that Parliament, in the exercise of its power, can pass legislation for the individual if Parliament want to. Parliament might, as Parliament can pass a law, if we choose to pass it, in the most emphatic terms, declaring that there shall be no divorce to-day and notwithstanding Parliament, by special legislation, might to-morrow make an exception, just as to-day, inasmuch as the law makes 
no provision for divorce-I am speaking of the provinces where there are no divorce courts-Parliament does step in occasionally and of its own motion withdraw a man from the operation of the law.
If we should pass an affirmative law saying there shall be no divorces, Parliament could, if Parliament desired, pass an Act for an individual who came and asked for it to take him out of the operation of that law; so that it is not in our power to bring about a condition where we could limit the powers of future parliaments, and say that they shall not, if they want to, pass legislation for the relief of particular individuals in particular cases. That is what is done to-day, and if the hon. member simply desired to alter procedure, then I would understand that the effect of his motion w-ould be to ask this House to consider ithe present procedure that is adopted with regard to the passing of this particular class of Private Bills. But evidently from the way he supports his motion, he contemplates the suggestion of a remedy consisting in the transferring over of what in this Parliament is a legislative power; and by transferring it, converting it into a judicial power, over to the judges. To do that, and to put the judges into a position to exercise any power in the matter, the first thing that would have to oe done is the enactment of a law which those judges could administer. We would have to have a law to prescribe that even adultery itself is, by law, a cause for divorce. We would have to have a law enacted to create a legal right to divorce. So that our position to-day is one that, as I understand it, we cannot possibly modify in the sense of preventing Parliament from enacting particular Acts in particular cases, and we cannot give jurisdiction to judges until we make a law of general application for the judges to administer. I think one has to really face the question whether we are prepared to introduce into the law of those provinces in which divorce does not exist, 'the institution of divorce, and to make a law as to what shall be isuffi-cient cause to justify the granting of divorce. Then of course you would leave that law, as you leave any other law, to be administered by the courts. But that is the first step in getting the jurisdiction into the hands of the court. It is not a mere matter of transferring a judicial jurisdiction from this House to the courts. The power that Parliament exercises is a legislative power, and to get power into the hands of the judges you would have to

enact a law and confer upon them the judicial power to administer that law. I want to point that out so as to make it perfectly clear that those of us who feel that we ought to vote against this motion are not open to the suggestion that we are not willing to let the procedure in regard to Private Bills be improved.
Speaking for myself, while of course I do not think these Acts should be passed, believing as I do that no man should be granted a divorce, nevertheless, if these rules could be considered with a view to improving them-and their improvement from my point of view would mean with a view to reducing the probabilities of the particular Bills passing into and becoming law-if in the exercise of its legislative power, Parliament intends in the future to enact particular Bills of this kind, I for one, would be glad to see such improvement in the procedure as would ensure the making perfectly clear in each case the existence of the cause for enacting these laws. But, as I say, the proposition that is put before us involves, if the motion stands as at present, a pronouncement upon the question whether or not we should introduce into the law of those provinces which have it not, a law of divorce. I do not propose to go into any argument upon the question of the desirability of, divorce. I rose for the purpose of making clear that what is involved in this motion is not a pure question of procedure; but the question whether the time has come when it is proper to adopt a general divorce law applicable within those provinces which have no such law at the present time. I need not say that the introduction of such a law would be a very radical change in the condition which has prevailed in this country up to the present day, and I venture to suggest that we have not had put before us any such public demand for such a radical change as would justify us in adopting it.
The hon. member who made the motion spoke of certain hardships which resulted in particular cases. The very best of laws will cause hardships in particular cases, and that we cannot get away from. But what we have to look at, is whether there exists any such demand among the people of this country based upon evidence going to show that the law as it stands to-day operates in a way to deprive the people, generally, of something which it is advantageous to them, and advantageous to the State, that they should have or whether, on the other hand, we have not reason to
congratulate ourselves upon the results that have followed upon the system to which we have been able to adhere up to the present, a system under which the law knows not divorce. When one dwells on inequalities in this regard, one dwells upon an inequality that exists and will continue to exist with regard to all things that may be obtained from Parliament by special or private legislation. It always costs something to pass private legislation. Divorce Bills are private legislation. I do not know that it has been shown that they cost more than other private legislation, and I do not think it can be said that it has been demonstrated here to-night, that even if those things were in the hands of the court that the rich man would not be in a better position to meet the expenses he would have to incur there, than the poor man, nor has it been made very clear that, as a rule at all events, the expense of passing a Bill before this House is greater than the expense of obtaining a judgment before an ordinary court. For my part I am not very much concerned in that. I would be thoroughly glad to see the inequality that exists absolutely disappear. The simplest and shortest way to bring about the disappearance of the inequality is not to put the poor man in the place the rich man is in to-day, but to take the rich man and put him in the place the poor man is in to-day, and leave them both to be governed by what is the common law of the country. Give to neither of them an exceptional law for himself. I think the part of wisdom certainly is for us to adhere to the system that has served us so well up to the present. We should have at the very least an unmistakable demand a demonstration of some measure of widespread wrong resulting from that system in the past, before we seek to alter it in such a very fundamental manner as is involved in the proposal set forth in the motion before us as explained by the hon. gentleman who so eloquently and so ably put the case in support of the motion.


Mr. G. H. BARNARD (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, coming as I do from a province Which has a divorce court of its own, I desire to say that I listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion which has taken place this evening. I was particularly interested in listening to the reply of the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) to the case as stated by the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup), although it did appear to me that the speech of the

hon. member for Rouville was not altogether a reply to that of the hon. member for East Hastings. The hon. member for Rouville devoted his attention to an argument against the principles of divorce as a whole. The hon. member for East Hastings, on the other hand, commenced with the premise that the condition is with us, that we have divorce. While I can appreciate the argument of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) that there is no law in some of the eastern provinces of this Dominion providing for divorce, and that if we give the machinery to them there will be no law for them to enforce, yet, at the same time, the fact remains that the condition is that any man who can afford to and who comes to this Parliament and can produce evidence of a certain state of facts, can get his divorce. It is somewhat difficult to drive into the head of a man who is applying for a divorce, and who is put to what seems an extraordinary and unnecessary expense, the difference between the fact of a court having jurisdiction and there being no law for it to enforce.
In regard to the law as it is in force in British Columbia, I would like to say that, in my opinion, it works extremely well. It has been in force since Confederation. It has not been abused. The sanctity of the marriage state is as highly regarded there as in any other part of Canada, and I think that so long as we have as good reason as we have in Canada to be proud of the Bench we need have no fears thit such a law would be abused. I can quite realize that this is a question on which members of this House should have a very serious difference of opinion. I think that, while I am in sympathy with the idea which my hon. friend from East Hastings wishes to carry into effect, the best way probably would be to have a committee of this House appointed that would go into this question of procedure and the desirability of granting a substantive divorce law so that the House can then deal with the matter in proper form and have the whole of the evidence before it. I would, therefore, beg to move in amendment the following:
That all the words after the word 'that' to the end of the question he omitted, and the following substituted therefor:
A committee of seven members to be appointed to inquire Into the existing procedure under which divorces are granted, and to report whether any and what more satisfactory procedure should be provided in such cases.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, we have listened with a great deal of interest to the somewhat

divergent views which have been expressed in regard to this question; and I may say that those who have had the privilege of being members of this House for fifteen or twenty years, are aware that this is by no means the first time that this subject has been under discussion. My hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) has proposed this motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the procedure under which divorces are granted by Parliament and the consequent unreasonable expense thereof are so unsatisfactory, besides being prohibitive to the great majority of people of Canada, that the same should be taken into immediate consideration by the Government with a view to reform, during the present session.
I do not take quite the same view of the motion as that which has been entertained by my colleague the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty). It would seem to me that my hOn. friend from East Hastings has under consideration more particularly the question of procedure, and is not aiming at the enactment of a general divorce law for the whole of Canada. In so far as the procedure by which these Bills are dealt with in Parliament is concerned, it is, in the first place, almost altogether a procedure which is provided by the rules of the Senate. I have had the opportunity, of which I, have availed myself on more than one occasion, of pointing out that the procedure of the Senate in that regard might possibly be improved in a very great measure.
One difficulty which as it has seemed to me very often arises in these proceedings before the Senate Committee is the lack of adequate precaution against collusive arrangement between the parties. In Great Britain and in some of the provinces of Canada, where there is a divorce law and where divorces are granted by the courts, it is the practice either to have the intervention of an officer known as the King's Proctor or, in the absence of the King's Proctor, the judge himself performs the duties which otherwise would be discharged by that officer, and in that way the greatest possible precaution is taken against collusive arrangement. It is also true that there are certain expenses which have to be met by persons who apply to this Parliament for a divorce that would not have to be met if they proceeded in court. It is also true that whether the divorce is applied for by means of a Private Bill in Parliament, or by ordinary judicial procedure where courts have been established

for that purpose, very great expense is sometimes involved.
It would not do for us to be under the impression that the mere enactment of a divorce law, or the establishment of courts in the various provinces of Canada, would altogether remove, in a great many cases, the inequality to which my hon. friend has alluded. The hon. member for Carle-ton, N.B., (Mr. Carvell) pointed out that in his own province, and within his own experience, there had been divorce proceedings which had cost the person who had instituted them many thousands of dollars, and that after all that great expense the proceedings had proved ineffective. Members of the bar in those provinces of Canada which have divorce courts, will realize that this is not an over-statement of the situation. There may be of course, cases in these provinces where the witnesses are readily accessible and the case is very plain, in which the expenditure necessary for the purpose of obtaining relief would be very light. At the same time, the expense of proceedings of that kind in the Senate, where witnesses are readily available and where large expenditure for the purpose of bringing them from a foreign country is not necessary, would also be relatively light, except for the cost of advertisement; the exact necessity for which I am unable to appreciate, and in that respect I am very much of the opinion which was expressed by my hon. friend (Mr. Northrup).
One difficulty which has been alluded to, and it is by no means undeserving of consideration, is the fact that members, whether of the Senate or the Commons, sometimes are not liable to realize to the full that in dealing with these cases they are supposed to be acting in a strictly judicial capacity, and to render their judgment strictly upon the evidence which has been adduced.
However, the whole situation, as to divorce in the five provinces is this: that while there is not any general law in these provinces which enables persons who consider themselves entitled to divorce to obtain it, there has been ever since 1867 in this Parliament the virtual constitution of a court which does deal with divorce cases from these provinces. It is equally true that not only the Senate but the House of Commons consider themselves bound in dealing with this question to proceed upon certain well-defined principles which regulate the granting of divorce in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In fact, rule
152 of the Senate makes this absolutely plain:
152. In cases not provided for by these rulesr the general principles upon which the Imperial Parliament proceeds in dissolving marriage, and the rules, usages, and forms of the House of Lords in respect of divorce proceedings may, so far as they are applicable, be applied to divorce proceedings before the Senate and before the standing committee on divorce.
The result seems to be that although there is no divorce law, and no divorce tribunal established in the five provinces, Parliament has nevertheless in a certain sense constituted itself into a tribunal for that purpose, and it is to that tribunal that persons desiring this relief come by the procedure of a private Bill.
I am not at all disposed to say that the procedure in the Senate could not be improved. In fact I have expressed the opinion on more than one occasion that it might. It might perhaps be improved by greater safeguards in respect to undefended cases, although I concur absolutely in what has been said as to the very excellent work which has been performed by Senator Kirchhoffer during the many years he has been Chairman of the Senate Committee on Divorce. Possibly some of the useless expense might be done away with to the end that the inequality which has been aliuded to by the hon. member (Mr. Northrup) might to a certain extent be relieved in so far as that expense does not provide any safeguards such as are provided in the courts of the land which deal with divorce cases.
I venture to think that the motion proposed by my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Barnard) would be a more direct and effective way of ascertaining whether or not the procedure can be improved, than the motion proposed by my hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Northrup). It must, of course, be realized by hon. members of this. House that so long as the practice which has prevailed for so many years, of instituting these proceedings in the Senate, is followed in the future, the rules of the Senate will be the controlling factor in the situation, and therefore, a motion such as that of my hon. friend from Victoria would probably be more effective if it made provision for an inquiry into this subject by a joint committee of this House and of the Senate. It wou.d seem to me that it might be well for us, before proceeding further with the discussion of the subject, to have that consideration in mind. Possibly some in-

quiry might be made of the members of the Upper House as to whether or not a joint committee, such as I have suggested, could not be appointed before the end of the session. In that view I would not protract the discussion further, and I therefore move that the debate be adjourned.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am afraid
that in rising to speak on this motion I may go against the rule which was adopted last year when introducing the closure; but perhaps as the subject we are discussing now is not of such a contentious nature as that which we had before us last year, I may be allowed the privilege of saying a few words upon the motion of my right hon.' friend. If I have correctly comprehended the whole tenor of the discussion, from the speech of my hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Northrup) down to the speech of the Prime Minister, there is no disposition to favour the idea of introducing a divorce law, because every hon. gentleman who has spoken in support of the idea of my hon. friend (Mr. Northrup) has stated that it is not the intention to further extend the principles upon which divorces are at the present time granted.
My hon. friend, if I apprehend him correctly, rather puts himself behind the minority report of the commission which sat upon the subject some two years ago in England, which minority report said that while they would not favour initiating an improvement of procedure, they would favour an improvement of procedure. This is the spirit in which my hon. friend has approached the subject. I have only this to say to him that, whilst he deprecates the idea of divorce, if his motion means anything at all, it has for its object to make more easy the granting of divorces by this Parliament. In other words, he thinks that divorce is an evil, but he says:	The evil
exists; we find it here; every year by law we grant this evil one more application; but still by his motion he desires to make it more easy to make applications for divorce and to grant more than we do at present. That does not seem to me to be a logical position at all.
For my part, I rather agree with the statement made by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice that up to this time the law does not know divorce, and that we had better stand by that position. We are in this position in Canada to-day, that there are fewer divorces in this country than in perhaps any other civilized country in the world. It is true that there may be an in-

justice done to somebody by the procedure that we have at the present time. There is no law that we can make, of any exceptional nature at all,- which will not work some injustice upon some individual. On the whole, however, such laws are for the benefit of the State, and I believe that it is for the benefit of the State that we have no divorce law.
The position taken by my hon. friend from Hastings is that we have no law, but ,we have a practice. The practice is such jthat it may work injuriously to certain parties and therefore he says that we should make this practice more easy and more accessible to those who have not the benefit of it to-day. This is simply providing for the extension of a thing which is acknowledged to be an evil. The reasoning upon this point of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice seems to be conclusive, and for my part I entirely agree with him.
There is just one point raised by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice on which I am not disposed to agree with him at the moment, but, whether I agree or not, it is merely a matter of speculation. My hon. friend has stated that we have divorce courts in four provinces, and that in the other five provinces we have no divorce court and we have no law. He is quite right that we have no divorce law in the province of Quebec, but I am not quite sure that there is not a divorce law in the province of Ontario. From my reading of the history of the case, I think that a divorce law such as it was then in England was introduced into the province of Upper Canada when it was created in 1791. The English laws were introduced into Upper Canada at that time. There was a divorce law in England at that time, and I think that it is in existence to-day in the province of Ontario. It is, however, a dormant law, whether it was effective or not, and the province of Ontario cannot bring it into force even if it is in existence, because by the Confederation Act the province has been deprived of the privilege of legislating in regard to divorces. Therefore, even if the law exists in Ontario, it is purely in an academic way; the province of Ontario cannot grant divorces, and it must be by this Parliament and this Parliament alone that such divorces are granted. I bring this matter to the attention of my hon. friend merely as a matter of speculation. On the other points which he has brought up, I repeat that I entirely agree with the views of my hon. friend the

Minister of Justice. I believe that we had better remain where we have been for the last forty years in this Confederation, and that the Canadian law should continue to ignore divorce as it has done heretofore. [DOT]
Motion of Mr. Borden agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House adjourned at 11 p.m.
Tuesday, February 17, 1914.