1914-05-30

PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 218, to incorporate the International Suburban Railway Company.- Mr. Lewis.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of John Robinson.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Helen Vin^berg.-Mr. Porter.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 221, to amend the Montreal Harbour Commissioners Act, 1894. He said:
This Rill deals with the question of the taxation of the property of the Harbour Commissioners of the city of Montreal. It is the intention to prevent such property being liable for assessment.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: *524
of agency that in future they are to report in English. Hon. Mr. Lemieux raised the question in Parliament this morning, referring specifically to letter written by you to purser; steamer 'Champlain.' Such action on your part was wholly unauthorized and if report correct you will immediately countermand any orders of that nature issued. Both French and English are official languages, and it must and will remain optional with employees and officers as to which of the two they shall use in reporting.
(Sgd) J. E>. Hazen.
I have not yet received a reply from Mr. Tremaine. T .can understand that, because no doubt the Quebec agency would be extremely busy with matters connected with the dreadful disaster on the river St. Lawrence at Father Point. But I have received the letter which he wrote to Mr. Deschenes, purser on the Champlain, and which was referred to in the newspaper. I do not think that any instructions such as were suggested have been sent out by Mr. Tremaine in any general way. The letter which I think has caused) tnis question to be raised, a copy of which I hold in my hand, is as follows:
Quebec, April 30, 1914.
Sir,-Your remittance of $100 received by Canadian Express to-day and same has been placed to the credit of earnings of the C.G.S. 'Champlain' for the month of April.
In regard to your typewriter, you wrote a personal letter to Mr. Mailloux. Please write one in English, and address it to the agent here, and it will receive attention.
Tours sincerely,
(Sgd) A. de B. Tremaine,
Supt. of agencies,
for agent.
Mr. J. O. Deschenes,
Purser on C.G.S. 'Champlain,'
RiviSre-Ouelle Wharf.
I think probably this is the letter that has given rise to the articles that appeared in the press. While it may be very improper that Mr. Tremaine should have told the purser that he must write to him in English, yet 1 think it will be found that no general order has been issued by Mr. Tremaine, and 'I am disposed to think that this is the reason of the misunderstanding that occurred in regard to the matter. In view of the telegram which I have sent, under which any such orders, if issued, will sf- ouee	coutif.-GTm nudcd
I do not think that there will be any cause for complaint in regard to this matter in the future.



IMMIGRATION OF HINDUS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called.-
Mr. OLIVER:: I desire to ask the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche) what is

the situation, according to his latest advices, with regard to the Hindu immigrants and their admission into Canada?


Mr. ROOHE:: I have not had any fresh information within the last twenty-four hours. They are putting the immigrants through a (very thorough examination which, up to the latest reports, we have received, has not yet been completed.


Frank Oliver: How many have been admitted up to date?


William Roche: I understand that about twenty claim former 'Canadian domicile, but these have not all been admitted by the department, inasmuch as at least one of them had been previously deported and is trying to regain admittance into the country.


Frank Oliver: Have habeas corpus proceedings been instituted?


William Roche: Not to my knowledge.



LOSS OF THE KARLUK.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Frank Oliver: Will the Minister of
Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) give to the House such information as he may have with regard to the steamer Karluk, in respect of which some reports have recently appeared in the press?


John Douglas Hazen: A telegram has been received dated St. Michael, Alaska, May 29, from Captain Robert Bartlett of the schooner Karluk, which carried the northern party of the Stefansson expedition. Captain Bartlett reports that the Karluk was wrecked by ice pressure and sank January 11, sixty miles north of Herald island. As preparations had been made early in the season to leave the ship, the party camped comfortably on the ice.
A couple of advance parties were sent during the winter towards. Herald island and Wrangel island and the main party landed on Wrangel island on March 12. This party consisted of Malloch, McKinley and Mamen of the scientific staff, and Bartlett, Munro, Williamson, Hadley, 'Chafe, Templeman, Maurer, Brady and Williams of the crew, and one Eskimo family. The party had eighty-six days supplies per man. Driftwood and game are abundant on the island. Bartlett left the party March 18 and made his way over the ice to the Siberian coast and then south to Emma harbour, where he was picked up by a trading ship and brought to St. Michael, Alaska.

Wrangel island is a large island, seventy miles by twenty-five miles, in the Arctic ocean off the coast of North East Siberia, about 140 miles from the mainland and some 300 miles from the Alaskan coast.



CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY AGREEMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Right Hon. R. L. Borden (Prime Minister), the House went into Committee on Bill No. 214, respecting the Canadian Northern Railway system, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 5-conditions precedent:
Mr. LEMIEUX:: The other day, when we were discussing the resolutions, I put a question to my right hon, friend the Prime Minister about the trust issue under this agreement. I said that I had heard rumours that it was to be administered by the National Trust Company, and I added that that company was 'supposed to be an adjunct of the Canadian Northern. I am glad to say that I have learned since that I was misinformed; and that, ajlthough Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann, Mr. Lash and others are directors of the National Trust Company, they own only ia limited number of shares in it. Can my horn, friend the Minister of Finance tell the House and the country who is going to administer this trust issue? Has my hon. friend made his selection so far?


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: It is a matter that has not been under consideration by the Government at all. When the Government has before it the consideration of the mortgage deed of trust, a trustee will be selected and named. I have had applications from all the trust companies in Canada.


Mr. CARVELL:: I am very glad indeed to hear the hon. minister make that statement. There are other members of the House besides myself who know that different trust companies would like to be recognized in this matter. There is a very strong feeling, .although there may be no foundation for it, that in some way the National Trust Company stands a pretty good chance of getting this business. My hon. friend knows that Mr. Lash is closely identified with the National Trust Company, and the country would be better satisfied if an independent trust company were selected, although I do not say that the National Trust Company is not perfectly safe, because we all know that it is. There has, however, been so much feeling about this! ;Cama)diaffn Northern business that the minister would do well to see that some entirely independent company was selected. I am not pleading more for one company than another, because I have no interest in any trust company.


William Thomas White: While I am obliged for
my hon. friend's expression of opinion, at the same time I do not propose, so far as I am concerned, to discriminate against any trust company that has a good standing in Canada. As I stated before, this matter has not been under consideration. When it is considered, the several trust companies which have made application will be considered. In the past the custom has been, so far as I am aware, that the railway company nominated a trustee; and unless there was some very good reason to the contrary, that trustee would be accepted by the Government.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Will that not
occur on this occasion, that, if the railway company selects a reputable trust company, the Government will not insist upon any other company being nominated?


William Thomas White: This question is put to
me as a minister, but it is one for the Government to decide. So far as the National Trust Company is concerned, of which I was at one time the general manager, there seemed to be no objection to it on the part of the late Government until 1911. It was trustee under mortgage deeds of trust by which the Government of Canada guaranteed securities of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and it acted also as trustee under the mortgage deeds of trust by which the Grand Trunk Pacific issued its bonds guaranteed by the Grand Trunk, the Royal Trust Company being selected by the Government of Canada as trustee for the issue of bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific guaranteed by the Government of Canada. When this matter is under consideration; we shall consider these applications; we shall take into consideration the nomination of the railway company, and we shall come to such conclusion as may be just. So far as I am concerned, I will not discriminate against any trust company that has good standing in this country.
My hon. friend the member for Rou-ville (Mr. Lemieux) said that the National

Trust Company was an adjunct of the Canadian Northern railway. Some of the most representative men in Canada, both Conservatives and Liberals, are connected with this company. Personally I have no interest in the National Trust Company. I gave up my directorship, and I own no shares in the company. It is, however, one of the best managed trust companies in Canada and a trust company of the highest standing, and for my part I will not discriminate against it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend has
misunderstood my remarks. I was simply asking, in a courteous manner, who was going to receive this trust issue; I said that there had been a rumour that the National Trust Company would receive it, and that at the same time it was an adjunct of the Canadian Northern railway. From private information which 1 have received, I am told that, though Mackenzie and Mann, Lash and others, are interested in the National Trust Company, they own only a moderate amount of the stock.


William Thomas White: Comparatively few shares
of the stock.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is nothing
against the National Trust Company in the remarks that I made, but I think the country is entitled to know who is going to receive this trust issue. My hon. friend's name was never mentioned. In fact, I never suspected that my hon. friend had been the general manager of the National Trust Company.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I can assure
my hon. friend) the Minister of Finance that everybody on this side of the House is well satisfied that there is no discrimination on his part and that he has discharged his duty to the best of his judgment; but he must not commit an error of judgment-the consequences might be serious.


William Thomas White: I desire to call the attention of my right hon. friend to the fact that if any error of judgment is involved in not discriminating against the company, unquestionably he himself has been guilty of that error of judgment in the past.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Am 1 right in
assuming that when the time is reached for the sale to the public of the guaranteed bonds proposed to be issued under this contract, they will be sold by the railway

company itself, through its brokers, or will the Government participate in any respect in that sale?


William Thomas White: The usual provision in a
mortgage deed of trust with respect to the matter to which my hon. friend has referred is that the bonds can only be issued at such time, at such prices and oh, such terms as may be approved) by the minister or the Governor in Council. In the practical working out of that provision, a railway company whose securities are guaranteed by the Government states to the Government that it proposes to make am issue of bonds. The Government, if it regards the time as opportune, approves that issue and approves also the price. In arriving at the price which the Government would approve, the Government or the minister takes into consideration the prices at which guaranteed securities are selling on the London market. But it must be borne in mind that when any targe issue of Government bonds or Government guaranteed bonds is made, on account of the size of the issue it is not possible to obtain the prevailing market price for share lots. In other words, the 'amount is usually a point or a point and a half, possibly more, below the quotation for comparatively small lots. That has been true in the past with regard to Dominion loans and with regard to Dominion guaranteed loans.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-forms, deeds and provisions subject to approval:
Wilfrid Laurier: Did I understand the Solicitor General to say that the proceeds of the bonds are to be deposited with the Receiver General and released only as the work proceeds?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Yes. In that connection I may point out that this section is stronger than any which has been adopted before. It now reads:
The disposition of the moneys to be raised thereon by sale, pledge or otherwise, shall be such as the Governor in Council approves.
All former clauses have read in this way:
The disposition of the moneys to be raised thereon by sale, pledge or otherwise, pending the expenditure of such moneys, shall be such as the Governor in Council approves.
. To my mind the effect of the words * pending the expenditure of such moneys ' was to give to the Governor in Council the power of disposition only until the money

was ready to be spent; at that stage the power of the Governor in Council would cease and the power of the company would become unrestrained. I do not want to say that heretofore the working out of the section as previously worded has not been right; I believe it has, but I insisted that the words ' pending the expenditure of such moneys ' be struck out, because it appeared to me that they might be used to restrain the power of the Governor in Council.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-issue of shares of companies restricted:
Frank Oliver: I understood that there
was some arrangement with regard to a possible amendment to section 14 with respect to the issue of additional shares of the subsidiary companies. That was a subject of considerable discussion between the hon. member for St. John and the Prime Minister. I understood there was to be some further consideration.


Arthur Meighen: There was a great deal of discussion on section 14, but the question at issue was voted on and decided, the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) being defeated. A similar suggestion was made by the hon. member for St. John with reference to the clause of the agreement providing for mutual running rights, the suggestion being that instead of leaving the final settlement of terms to the Railway Commission it should be left to the Railway Commission and to the Governor General in Council.
On the second schedule, part 1-stocks to be transferred free from prior charges:


Wilfrid Laurier: The other day I questioned the Solicitor General as to the reason why the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway Company, which is part of the Canadian Northern Railway system, is not included in the second schedule and why, therefore, we have not a mortgage on its stock. I understood from my hon. friend that the reason why it is not included is that the shares of the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway Company belong to the Canadian Northern Ontario, and that therefore1 they come under the mortgage. That is my understanding of the answer of my hon. friend.	I have to 'dissent from his
interpretation. The shares of the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway Company may belong to the. Canadian Northern
Ontario, but, even if they do, they do not come under the mortgage. We have only to refer to section 4, subsection a, which reads:
Grant a first, fixed, and specific mortgage or charge upon the shares mentioned.
The shares mentioned are the shares of the Canadian Northern railway, not the shares of the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway Company; and although they may belong to the Canadian Northern Ontario, as they are not mentioned, eo nomine, in the schedule, they do not come within the terms of the agreement, whatever may have been the intention. If the intention of the draftsman of the Bill was that the Niagara Company should be included, it must be named, otherwise it would not be included.


Arthur Meighen: I think the right hon. leader of the Opposition is quite right in this:	the Niagara, St. Catharines and
Toronto Company's shares are not specifically mortgaged in the $45,000,000 new trust deed. There is no doubt about that.


Wilfrid Laurier: Are they
really?


Arthur Meighen: But they are in effect mortgaged there, because the Canadian Northern Ontario stocks are mortgaged, and those stocks represent the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto railway just as they represent all the other assets of the Canadian Northern Ontario. Of course, that is not a specific mortgage on the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway stocks. I can only draw attention again to section 11, which provides that the Canadian Northern Ontario shall mortgage all its assets as an additional security to the Government for the share of the moneys that the Canadian Northern Ontario gets. In that mortgage we shall get a specific mortgage on the Canadian Northern Ontario shares. The Canadian Northern Ontario own the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto shares among its other assets, just as it owns the railway from Port Arthur to Montreal. It mortgages all its assets, and consequently it mortgages specifically the Canadian Northern Ontario shares. Of course it is only security for the amount the Canadian Northern Ontario gets, but the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto shares would represent a very small portion of the moneys which the Canadian Northern Ontario will get. Consequently the country has as ample

security specifically on the shares of the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway Company as if they were included direct in the 345,000,000 mortgage. Of course, we would have put them in with the $45,000,000 if it had been possible. But it was not possible because the Canadian Northern had no way of acquiring them without paying out cash, and we did not want to pay out cash to get them. They wanted to purchase them, but the 4 per cent perpetual debenture bonds trust deed prevented the Canadian Northern from using the proceeds of the bonds. But it did not prevent the Canadian Northern Ontario. The trust deed of the Canadian Northern Ontario 4 per cent perpetuals enabled them to purchase the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto stock. Not under the $45,000,000 trust deed do we get a specific mortgage, but under the mortgage to be given by the Canadian Northern Ontario for its share of the proceeds we do get a specific mortgage on these shares.
SiT WILFRID LAURIER:	My hon.
friend has thought it well to get a general mortgage upon the shares of the Canadian Northern Ontario and the subsidiary companies, but he has not thought it advisable to take a mortgage upon the Niagara, Kt. Catharines and Toronto railway, i am not satisfied. We have a mortgage upon the subsidiary companies, but I cannot see why that company does not come within the terms of the second schedule. Why is it that we do not have our blanket mortgage covering that as everything else? We cover all the subsidiary companies, but what we ask is to get a blanket mortgage on everything owned by the Canadian Northern system.


Arthur Meighen: My right hon. friend overlooks one fact. It is true that by this clause covering this schedule we get a mortgage on the stock of the subsidiary companies, including the Canadian Northern Ontario, but by the Canadian Northern Ontario mortgage to us we get a mortgage on its assets. If we relied on that mortgage as being a mortgage on the stock of the Canadian Northern Ontario we would be deceived. A company cannot give a mortgage on its own stock; it can give a mortgage on the stock which it owns; consequently, we get a mortgage on the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto railway Tinder the Canadian Northern Ontario mortgage.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not
understand what my hon. friend means when he says that a company does not give a mortgage on its own stock.


Arthur Meighen: How can a company give a mortgage on its own stock? It cannot; it can only give a mortgage on any stock which it owns.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER; You say in
section 4 of the Bill:
Grant a first, fixed, and specific mortgage or charge upon the shares mentioned in the first part of the second schedule.


Arthur Meighen: Because those shares
are owned by the Canadian Northern. The Canadian Northern cannot give a mortgage on its own stock, but it can give a mortgage on the stock it owns.


Wilfrid Laurier: All right; I
see.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Has the Solicitor General nothing to say with regard to the Toronto, Niagara and Western? It does not appear in the list. It is a valuable franchise, and it is a part of the Canadian Northern system and owns all of the Toronto and Suburban line now building from Toronto westward.


Arthur Meighen: I understand that the company exists all right, but nothing is in the name of that company as yet except merely some rights with respect to a bridge near the city of Brantford. The right of way of the company has been purchased in the name of the Canadian Northern Ontario.


Hugh Guthrie: No, in the name of
the Toronto and Suburban; it is a local charter.


Arthur Meighen: Well, that is different.


Hugh Guthrie: In 1904, the Toronto,
Niagara and Western Company was incorporated and the express power was given to acquire shares in the Toronto and Suburban which is a radial line. I understood, from a statement made by the Chairman of the Railway Committee in the House prior to his departure a week or two ago, that the Toronto, Niagara and Western had acquired all the shares of the Toronto and Suburban. The Toronto and Suburban have sold their bonds and built their road to Guelph and they are now buying their right of way through Guelph to Berlin and Stratford. There is no men-

tion in the schedule of it. Of course, we want the road to go through.


Arthur Meighen: In so far as we could learn, there was no railway company that was owned by Mackenzie, Mann and Company, Limited, useful to the system either directly or indirectly, that we did not 'bring in. There are some companies in the same position as the Toronto, Niagara and Western. My information is that they have no substantial assets as yet, but if they have, and if they become owned by parties from whom we can take them, the Governor in Council has power, under the first clause, to declare them to be part of the system. There is nothing -lost by not taking such a road as this in now because if the road was included we would have to pay down cash for it. We would have to utilize the moneys of the system to pay out what it had cost to acquire.


Hugh Guthrie: I understand that it
can be taken- in at any time in the future on the order of the Governor in Council?


Arthur Meighen: Yea, if it gets in a
position similar to any we have taken in, we have -power to take it in also.
On the interpretation clause:


Arthur Meighen: Before this Bill goes
out of committee I should state for the information of the right hon. the (leader of the Opposition that he may think from my remarks that the Toronto, Niagara and St. Catharines is already owned by the Canadian Northern railway. I am not certain of this, but I know that the negotiations are complete, and I am rather inclined to think that the transfer has been made, but it is to be made at actual cost to the Canadian Northern Ontario, and the holders of the stock are to take the 4 per cent perpetual debenture bonds of the Canadian Northern Ontario for it. We have seen to it that it is to be arranged that there is to be no profit in the transaction.
On section 15-declaratory:


Arthur Meighen: I understand that the hon. member for Edmonton has 'asked that clause 15 stand. If not, perhaps we can take it up.


Frank Oliver: No, I am quite ready to take it up.


Arthur Meighen: I understood from the Prime Minister that the horn, member for Edmonton wanted it to stand, and I do not care to take it up until he returns.


Frank Oliver: I am perfectly satisfied
to take it up later on.


The CHAIRMAN:: Clause 15 stands.
Progress -reported.



BRITISH NATIONALITY NATURALIZATION.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 173, respecting British nationality naturalization and aliens.-Mr. Doherty; Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 13-loss of British nationality by foreign naturalization:
Wilfrid Laurier: Is there under this section a departure from the present law?


Mr. DOHERTY:: No, it is practically the same. The present provision is:
Any British subject who has, at any time before or at any time after the fourth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, when in a foreign state and not under any disability, voluntarily becomes naturalized in such state, shall, from and after the time of his so having become naturalized in such foreign state, be deemed, within Canada, to have ceased to be a British subject, and shall be regarded as an alien.
The difference between this enactment and the old law is that the effect of the law respecting British nationality now attaches only to the British subject who, by obtaining a certificate of naturalization or by any other voluntary and formal act, becomes naturalized in some other country. The reason for the the change is this: Under the law as it stood, wherever he voluntarily became naturalized in some other state, he lost his -quality of British subject. Under that wording it was contended that a man who, going into a foreign state, did anything which, under the law of that state, would, without any express declaration of his own, constitute him a citizen of that state, should be considered to have voluntarily become a citizen of that -state. Under the change, unless he does some formal act declaring his intention to become naturalized, there will be no naturalization or no abandonment of his quality of British subject; that must be not by inference, but by some voluntary and formal -act.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think that under our law an alien can become naturalized except .by actual declaration of naturalization; in other countries there seems to be implied naturalization as *well.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is, in certain countries. I do not think I am mistaken in saying that in France, under certain conditions, which I am not prepared to discuss, a man marrying a French woman would become a French citizen. That is a case where a man would not by any formal act of his own become naturalized; that is to say, his naturalization in France would be the result of an act that he might do without having any idea of becoming naturalized at all. It is a consequence attached by the law to another act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-saving of obligations incurred before loss of nationality:
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have not gone through this Bill as carefully as I might have, but there is one point on which I would like some information. A child is born of British subjects in a foreign country; and during its minority. It returns to a British country and becomes a resident there. I have met with a number of similar cases in my life, mostly in connection with political matters. Is there any provision in this Bill for such a case, and is there any declaration as to the status of such a child? I have always held that that child would be a British subject, but I know that there has been a good deal of discussion in regard to the matter.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The first section of the Bill provides that:
The following persons shall be deemed to be natural-born British subjects, namely:
(b) Any person born out of His Majesty's dominions, whose father was a British subject at the time of the child's birth-
That is a British subject, either bom or naturalized.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, that seems to meet the case.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no question that a child of British subjects born outside of His Majesty's dominions is a British subject.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17-capacity of alien as to pro perty:
Wilfrid Laurier: Is there any change?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This section reproduces sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of chapter 77 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, which is our present naturalization law. I think that the wording is absolutely identical. It was intended to be so, although it embodies all in one section with the proviso The 12th day of July, 1883, if I understand aright, is the date of the sanction of the Naturalization Act which was embodied in the Revised Statutes of 1906.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is nothing new in this section?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wonder if subsection 4 has any reference to a judgment made by the Privy Council lately in regard to the collection of succession taxes on the part of the Quebec Government against a certain estate.


Charles Joseph Doherty: 
[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18-trial of aliens:
Rodolphe Lemieux: I suppose, by this section, an alien in the province can claim a jury de medietate linguae?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not understand so. In the province of Quebec we have not any provision about a jury de medietate linguae, excepting as. between people speaking the French language and people speaking the English language.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Take the ease of a
Frenchman.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He would be a person, I presume, sneaking the French language.


Wilfrid Laurier: The law
applies to all parties.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, and the right to a mixed jury is. a right dependent on the language which the person speaks, without regard to whether he is an alien or a British subject. This present provision really reproduces article 922 of the Criminal Code, with the difference that it says simply that as alien shall be triable as a natural-born British subject, and does not expressly deny him any right to a juTy de medietate linguae.


Wilfrid Laurier: Would it not be sufficient simply to say that an alien becomes a British subject and that at the moment he does so, he takes the consequences, good or bad?


Charles Joseph Doherty: These sections are dealing not with the naturalized person but with the alien who has not become naturalized, so that we have to say in what respects he shall be treated as a British subject. With regard to section 17, I see by referring to the Act that the word ' twelfth ' in the fifth line of subsection 4 should be ' fourth ', making it read ' the fourth day of July, eighteen hundred and eighty-three '.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. COCKSHUTT:: I may not have
looked over the Bill very carefully, but I do not find in it provision regarding the issuing of passports or with regard to whether or not passports to all foreign countries will be recognized as readily if carried by an alien who is naturalized under this law as if carried by a natural-born British subject. Heretofore there has been a vast difference between the quality of the passports issued to the naturalized citizens of this Dominion and of those issued to the citizens who are native-born. In travelling through foreign countries it is important that a person should have the right kind of passport; it gives him a status in the country through which he is passing that he cannot possibly obtain through citizenship in any other country. The fact of being a British subject is one of the most valuable assets a man can have. What I would like to hear from the minister is whether an alien
who complies with the qualifications which are required in the British Isles will be able to get from the State Department at Ottawa the same passport as that given to a natural-born British subject, entitling him to travel in foreign parts and to enjoy the protection of His Majesty if he requires it against anybody who may molest him either in property or in person. That, I think, is one of the greatest ends, which should be aimed at under a Bill of this nature and I would like to be fully seized of the facts with regard to the quality of the passport which will be issued to the alien who has qualified under this law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have no specific
provision as to what sort of passport a naturalized subject will get, but we have the express provision that he shall be entitled to all political and other rights, powers and privileges and be subject to all obligations, duties and liabilities to which a natural-born British subject is entitled or subject, and as from the date of his naturalization have to all intents and purposes the status of a natural-born British subject. He will have everything a natural-born British subject has, and I have no doubt that that includes any right that may exist to a particular species of passport.


William Foster Cockshutt: It appears to me
that that applies more to the period while he is resident in the country in which he has become naturalized than to his travelling in foreign parts; it would seem to give him special privileges in his own country rather than accredit him with the quality of a British subject in foreign countries. There has been a great deal of difficulty in Canada in that connection. and that difficulty has of late been increasing, especially with regard to Turkish aliens who have come into Canada and become naturalized. In my own city I have come in contact with several cases in which a man who has come from a foreign country and has qualified as a British citizen has been refused the rights of a British citizen in his native country, and his wife, coming to this country to join him has been detained. What I want to know is whether a Canadian citizen who is fully naturalized under this law, which I understand is to be imperial, is to have the same status in foreign countries as a man who is native-born.


Charles Joseph Doherty: 
William Foster Cockshutt: Could a man naturalized under this law still be claimed as a citizen of another country ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The British Government would look on him wherever he goes as a British subject, but they would not be able to override the law of the country of which he originally was a subject if he return 
thereto if that country still wished to retain him.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Reference has been made by the minister to a point I have very often brought up, and that is the ability of a man to renounce the country of his origin. That is more or less provided for in the United States, and, unless we provide similar means, by convention or otherwise, people like Russian Jews will be prohibited from enjoying in their native country the privilege of citizenship in the country to which they have attached themselves and in which they have taken out naturalization papers. That seems very anomalous and does not commend itself to those who, having left the country of their origin, perhaps for good reasons, acquire citizenship in another country, and who find when they go back to their native land that they automatically lose their newly-acquired citizenship and automatically come under the laws of their native country. If that condition were more or less modified it would be much more satisfactory to those people.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No doubt it is a very unsatisfactory condition where a man has a double nationality; but there is no method by which a remedy can be brought to that condition of affairs except endeavouring by means of diplomacy to bring about treaties with these different countries to settle this question, or by inducing these countries by their own laws to recognize the right of a man to throw off his citizenship. In our own country we must remember that we did not always think that a man could throw off his citizenship. It is only since 1870 that Great Britain recognized the possibility of a man who was once born a British subject ceasing by his own act to become a British subject. Great Britain always claimed that her subjects even though they became naturalized in a foreign country were still British subjects. In this Act, and the British Act, there are provisions by which a man can throw off his citizenship. There is with the United States a particular treaty whereby each nation to the treaty agrees wherever one of its subjects or citizens -becomes a naturalized subject or citizen of the other country that he shall cease to he a subject or citizen of the country of his origin. Everybody recognizes and deplores the unfortunate consequences that follow upon the fact that a man finds himself a citizen of two different countries; but no one country alone by its legislation can bring about any remedy. It will have to be a
MiAY 30, 1014
matter of co-operation. When it comes to the question of the effect of our naturalization on the status of a person naturalized in his own country, that is a matter to be determined by the legislation of the country of his origin.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend from Brantford (Mr Cockshutt) has instanced the case of a Turk, naturalized in this country, who, returning to his native land, found that he could not enjoy there the rights and privileges of British citizenship. Was that a concrete or hypothetical case?


William Foster Cockshutt: Several cases of that kind have come under my notice. There was the case of a man who had lived in Brantford for several years and become a man of property. He had a wife in his native country and wished to bring her out. The cases I have endeavoured to assist have been mostly those of Armenians, who make very good citizens. There are 800 to 1,000 of them in Brantford, and many have become naturalized. Some of them have endeavoured to get their wives out. On one occasion I got the British Consul to interfere, and eventually he got the wife of one of these men out, but it took two or three years, and I do not know whether she was allowed to leave her country in the regular way. There have been one or two similar cases where wives have been allowed to come out through the representations and good offices of the British Consul. During the late Balkan war a Brantford citizen went over on a temporary visit. He was as fully a naturalized citizen of this country as we could make him at that time, although not so full naturalized as he could be under this Act. He went back to his native country-(Bulgaria, I think it was-and was immediately seized, forced into the army, and made to fight in the late war. He was carrying naturalization papers at the time, and supposed he was under the protection of this Government, but, as the minister has explained, a man cannot claim the rights of British citizenship in those countries unless we have a convention of some kind. That appears to he an anomaly that will still exist under the new legislation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I know my hon. friend is a staunch imperialist. Might I remind him that at the present time there are three or four hundred British citizens in the harbour of Vancouver at the very gates of Canada. Many of them have served in the 286
British army, and they are now asking this Government to let them come within the gates, but they are being refused entry. I do not take sides on this question, but as my hon. friend is a stout imperialist, I would like to know what he thinks of that? He has said that a man once naturalized should be given the rights and privileges of citizenship, even in his own native country. Here are British subjects who have served in the King's army and under the British flag, and this great imperialistic Government of ours is holding them up in Vancouver harbour. 'The Government say: No, you shall not come in; you shall not have the privilege of British citizenship in Canada. What does my hon. friend think of that?


William Foster Cockshutt: That is rather a difficult subject and perhaps a little aside from the question we are discussing. It has been raised not only in this House, hut at different empire trade gatherings. I have attended the empire trade gatherihgs on seven or eight occasions, and on two occasions I *have put forward this very subject, believing it to be the most important subject that could be discussed. Eight or ten years ago we passed resolutions in line with the new legislation. At that time the question that my hon. friend has referred to was raised as a reason why we should not ask for a general naturalization law covering the whole empire. I do not think that difficulty should be allowed to stand in the way of an empirewide naturalization. India, in my judgment, stands in a different relation to the empire from Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, or any of the other overseas dominions. I know my hon. friend will probably tell me that I should not allow colour or skin or class or creed or anything of that kind to enter into my imperialism. That may be very good doctrine to preach but whether it is sound in practice is another question, and whether we would be wise in endeavouring to draw a line of demarcation between the different subjects of the empire is a question on which I am not prepared to give an opinion. If the Minister of Justice is prepared to tackle it I will willingly hand it over to him. It is a difficult question. I may say, however, that if these people who are now at our doors were furnished with passports under this new legislation they would not be in any better position than they are to-day, probably not as good, in some respects. The Empire of India is in a different class from the Dominion of Canada and the other countries to



which this legislation is going to be made applicable. I do not know that we are called upon to draw a line of demarcation between the British subjects of India and those of the other dominions. I do not know whether my hon. friend, in the Government which he served so long and faithfully, dealt with this question or not. Probably the Hindus are running up against a law that was in force in my hon. friend's time, and which may not have been changed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The point I wished to make was that the British subjects of India are refused entrance into British Columbia by a Government which at the last election stood for one throne, one flag, one navy, one King, and one empire.
At one o'clock, the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.
On section 20-posting of application:


William Foster Cockshutt: When the committee rose for recess I was about to put a .question to the hon. Minister of Justice, but I was interrupted by the hon. member for Eouville (Mr. Lemieux) with a question about the Hindu immigration into British Columbia. I shall not devote any time to answering that question, except to say that I think my views are quite consistent in the matter, inasmuch as the people of any nation who are considered undesirable have not a right to enter Canada contrary to the immigration laws. If it is held by the authorities that the Hindu comes under that clause, I think I am perfectly consistent in abiding by the ruling of the Interior Department on that question. I do not wish to pursue that subject any further. What I wished to ask the minister was: What course is prescribed for an alien who is desirous of becoming repatriated in Canada? Many Canadians have gone to the United States, they have foresworn allegiance to their King and country, renouncing all their obligations to them, and have become naturalized citizens of the United States. Will the same course be pursued in regard to those who seek repatriation in our country as is pursued in the first place. when the immigrant comes to our shores? Will all the conditions that attach to citizenship in the Dominion be applied to that person? Will a three or five years' residence, that is necessary to entitle an alien to become a citizen of Canada, be necessary in the case

of a man who has gone to the United States and renounced his own country?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, this legislation does away with any distinction between a born alien and what used to be called a statutory alien; that is, a man who has become an alien by renouncing his quality of a British subject. Any alien, whether formerly a British subject or not, who wants to be naturalized, must comply with the law.


William Foster Cockshutt: I think that you are right in that. Then, no Canadian who has become an American citizen has a right to come to Canada and exercise the franchise without taking out his naturalization papers and becoming a British citizen? No doubt, many hon. members well know that we have found men voting in elections who have become American citizens, who have returned to the Dominion, and who, taking up their residence but not possessing the ordinary qualifications of British citizens, have entered into all the rights of citizenship. I am pleased to hear from the minister that it will no longer be possible for people who are seeking repatriation to obtain it without complying with all the requirements of the law in the same way as if they had not been bom British subjects.


Mr. BRADBURY:: Would a returning Canadian have to live three years in Canada before he could take out his naturalization papers?


William Foster Cockshutt: I understand the minister to say that he will have to reside three years in Canada before he can take out his papers.


Mr. CARROLL:: Five years.


William Foster Cockshutt: It will be five years, but it has only been three years in the past. I understand that hereafter the applicant will have to live five years in Canada before he can obtain citizenship.


Mr. McKENZIE:: The law now is that
if a Canadian born goes to the United States and becomes a citizen he only requires to reside in Canada three months before he can apply foT naturalization under the present law.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: During the last election I had considerable difficulty in connection with this question. I did not pretend to put my opinion up against legal opinion, but I thought that common sense

was sufficient to define who was a British subject and who was legally qualified to vote. Quite a number of men born in Canada but who had gone to the United States who had become naturalized as citizens of the United States, and who had come back to Canada and never applied to be naturalized, went to the voting place in the last election in my constituency and asked to be allowed) to vote. I objected, but they took legal opinion and the result is that they have voted at two elections. I refer especially to two or three men that I know. Now I understand the minister to say that a man who was bom in tianatta and who goes to the United States, becomes an American citizen and returns to Canada will not be permitted to exercise his franchise in Canada unless he has again become naturalized and has lived the specified time in this country. That is right, is it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under the law which
we are enacting he is an alien.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: And was before this law?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, but under this
law he will be purely and simply an alien like any other alien. A man who has gone through the operations wmch the non. member has mentioned was, under the old law, called a statutory alien and he was' entitled to be re-admitted as a British subject upon complying with the requirements of naturalization, with tne exception that he only required to have resided three months in Canada 'after his return. We are doing away with any distinction between a person who was once a subject and has become an alien by renouncing! his allegiance 'and a bom alien. We (require that he shall comply with the conditions of this Act before he can apply for naturalization.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: He could not vote
under the old law until he became natuaa-lized in Canada again?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under the old law the
provision with regard to the re-admission of a statutory alien into Canada was as follows:
A statutory alien may, upon the same terms and subject to the same conditions as are required in the case of an alien applying for a certificate of naturalization, except that residence in Canada for not less than three months shall be sufficient, apply to the proper court or authority or person in that behalf for a 286i
certificate in form F, hereinafter referred to as a 'certificate of admission to British nationality,' readmitting him to the status of a British subject within Canada.
This Act does away with any certificate of re-admission; any man who is an alien, by whatever means he became an alien, must comply with the provisions of this law to become naturalized.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not agree with my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) that all these matters are decided on common sense; if he practised law for a few years he might change his view on that. I do agree with him that it does seem the natural interpretation to put on the Act. Has the minister considered the case of a man who goes to the United States and declares his intention of applying for naturalization, but never went through the further process to become naturalized? Can he come back to Canada and claim on his return to be a British subject? After the Civil War, a number of those who had enlisted in the United States army and took the necessary oath to join that army returned to Canada; is there any existing legislation which would meet a case like that? If there should be war with Mexico, there are many adventurous spirits in our country who possibly might join the United States army, and take the necessary oath to do so. Is their case provided for?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under section 13 of the present Act, no person loses his British nationality unless he has become naturalized in some foreign country, and unless that naturalization is the result of a voluntary and formal act on his part. The mere fact that a man had declared his intention would not bring him within section 13, which provides the manner in which a man loses his British nationality, as a result of his becoming a citizen of some other country. I do not think he will lose his British nationality merely because he has declared his intention.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What about the man who joins the United States army and takes the necessary oath to enable him to do so?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think that would make him lose his British nationality, unless it had the effect of naturalizing him in the United States.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I presume that is the way it would work out.


Frank Oliver: Subsection 8 says that in "Saskatchewan and Alberta application shall be made to a judge of the Supreme Court of the province or of any district court. Does that require the personal presence of the applicant before the judge?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That provision itself
does not require personal presence and 1 think the application could be made through some representative. In section 21 the applicant is required to produce to the court such evidence that he is qualified and fit to be naturalized under the provisions of this Act as may be required by the court, subject to such regulations as may be made. It will be necessary for him to prove, which means proof by such evidence as is generally required 'before a court. That would give the court the right to require the person's presence, if the court was not satisfied by other evidence of his possession of the qualifications. In the regulations that will be required to be made under the Act, it is the intention to expressly point out the necessity of calling upon the person to appear unless there are some reasons against it. If a man is so ill that he cannot come to court or, possibly, if his residence is far distant, if he can make satisfactory evidence to the court that he possesses all the qualifications, I do not think it would be well to make it imperative that in every case he should come to court.


Frank Oliver: I appreciate the point of view which calls for the presence of the applicant under certain circumstances, but what I want to get clear is that he does not require to appear when the application is made. Of course, afterwards when the case comes before the judge, it would be the first time he might be required to appear.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. The application
may be produced .by anybody and deposited in the court.


William Foster Cockshutt: I do not see in the Bill any provision as to the costs which shall be paid by any applicant for naturalization. Should there not be provisions limiting these costs?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Whatever costs may be necessary will of course, have to be borne by the applicant. The Act confers power to make regulations and among the things that may be fixed by these regulations will be the question of costs. If it is necessary to have a fee I think the fee should be

fixed so that the applicant would not be liable to excessive costs.


William Foster Cockshutt: That seems to be a very important point and one on which we should have a little more definite information. Every citizen that is a good citizen is a valuable asset to the country; and 1 do not quite agree with the doctrine that the minister enunciates in that respect, namely, that there is nobody to pay the cost but the man who makes the application. A good citizen should not be saddled with an unnecessary amount of costs. Therefore I think there should be a limit prescribed; and in my opinion, two or three dollars is as much as a man should reasonably be called upon to pay for an application of this kind. He may have legal charges as well. When [DOT] a man has come to be a real citizen, he should take an interest in public affairs and vote in municipal, provincial and Dominion elections; but if the court has the right to fix a fee as high as ten, fifteen or twenty dollars, it may preclude certain good citizens from taking out their papers, when in all other respects they feel ready to do so. If the minister could see fit to regulate that charge so that it would not exceed two or three dollars, it would be a good thing. If the applicant has to engage counsel and, in other ways, to go to considerable expense, many good citizens may be debarred from taking advantage of this law. If the charge fixed is to be a high one, the Dominion or the State might well be looked to to pay a portion of the expenditure.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Subsection h of section 24 expressly provides that the Governor in Council may make regulations for:
The imposition and application of fees in respect of any registration authorized to be made by this Act or any Act hereby repealed, and in respect of the making of any declaration or the grant of any certificate authorized to be made or granted by this Act or any Act hereby repealed, and in respect of the administration or registration of any oath.
Therefore we shall have power to fix any charge made by the officials. I need not say that we do not look at this at all, and I do not think any government would look at this, as a source of income. If any fee is fixed, it will probably be a nominal one.	As regards costs	in the
way of retaining counsel, however, I do not think it would be possible for the Government to undertake to pay *costs of that kind. I should say the majority of the applicants would hardly require to employ counsel. The require-

ments of the law are very simple; and for the Government to undertake to pay costs of that kind would put the Government in the position that for some people they would be paying money and for others they would not. If we undertook to pay costs of that kind, every applicant would incur costs. There need not b any apprehension that, under these regulations, any fee will be imposed that would place the slightest obstacle in the way of any person becoming naturalized.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I agree with the minister that there should be no provision made for counsel. If an alien wants to be naturalized, he will never have any trouble in getting some gentleman to present his petition to court. I would, however, like to see something definite as to the amount of fees which can be charged by the court.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is a provision
for its being fixed by regulation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Under the present Act,
it is fixed by statute. I had an illustration in regard to this matter last year. A man wanted to be naturalized; I presented his petition to court, and at the close of the court, I received an account from the clerk for about six or seven dollars which he had charged up to me as the fee for this naturalization. I pointed out to the clerk that under the law he was entitled to fifty cents. Of course, he was very much surprised; but I think the minister might do well to fix the fee, and it should not be greater than really necessary. We all know how resourceful some of these clerks are in taxing up a bill of costs.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will give the matter
consideration. It seems to me, howrever, it would be a matter that might be entrusted to the Governor in Council to make the regulation. If it is necessary that we should put it into the statute, we may meet that requirement. I do not know that there is any great objection to doing it; but it would seem to be a very proper matter to be governed by regulation, and I think the House can have confidence that we shall not try to impose any heavy fees in this connection. We have every desire to make the thing as simple as possible, and I am not certain that it will be necessary to impose any fees at all.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The clerks will be entitled to something.
Mr nnHKBTY [DOT] Of cnurst


William F. Carroll: In regard to section 18 taken in connection with section 21, which we have not yet reached, I wish to point out that under section 18, the alien desiring to be naturalized shall apply:
In Nova Scotia, to the Supreme Court, during- its sittings in the county in which the alien; resides, or to the county court having jurisdiction in such county ;
In Saskatchewan or Alberta, to a judge of the Supreme Court of the province or of any district, sitting in chambers in the judicial district in which the alien resides.
I presume there was some well founded reason for allowing the application to be made ini chambers in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta and in open court in the Supreme Court in the province of Nova Scotia and other provinces. The Adjudicature Acts of some of our provinces say that the evidence required in chambers shall be by affidavit and that the evidence in open court shall be viva voce. A difficulty may creep in here, in regard to the province of Nova Scotia, unless it is stated specifically as to how the evidence shall be given. In section 21 there should be no doubt at all, apart from regulations which may be made hereafter, as to whether the evidence shall be m chambers by affidavit or 'in open court viva voce, and whether or not the applicant shall appear. If it is the intention of this legislation that generally the applicant shall appear before the court, the regulations which come from the Governor in Council should specify the exceptions when he need not appear in court, but the legislation should have no doubt in it at all.
The Bill should also have no- doubt in it as to what evidence is necessary. Section 2 states that the applicant must show:
(a)	that he has either resided in His Majesty's dominions for a period of not less than five years in the manner required by this section, or been in the service of the Crown for not less than five years within the last eight years before the application; and
(b)	that he is of good character and has an adequate knowledge of either the English or French languages; and
(c)	that he intends if his application is granted either to reside in His Majesty's dominions or to enter or continue in the service of the Crown.
I submit that that should be all the evidence necessary to produce before the court. I would say that section 21 gives the judge power to ask for more evidence than that, or it gives the Governor in

Council power by (regulation to say that more evidence shall be asked:
The applicant shall produce to the court such evidence, that he is qualified and fit to be naturalized under the provisions of this Act, as may be required by the court, subject to such regulations as may be made hereunder.


Charles Joseph Doherty: ' Such evidence as may be required,' but all he has to prove is that he is fit and qualified to be naturalized under the provisions of this Bill, and the provisions of this Bill that determine what are the things that he must be in order to be fit and qualified are contained in section 2. Section 21 merely requires that he shall produce evidence that he has the qualifications prescribed by section 2. All that the court has to determine or that the regulations may prescribe is what kind of evidence will be required.


William F. Carroll: That is just where the minister and myself do not agree. I say the Governor in Council should not be given the power to say what evidence is necessary. That is the most essential point in this Bill. The Governor in Council should; not take the power to say what kind of evidence is necessary and how it shall be given; that matter should be decided by Parliament, ko that an alien, who wants to become naturalized, or his lawyer could take up this Bill, without sending to Ottawa to get the regulations, and could find in it all the things that are usually necessary in order that this alien may be naturalized. I took the position, when the Bill was up for second reading, that the Governor in Council was taking to himself too much power, not only in this Bill, but in several other Bills before Parliament. This is one of the most important points in this Bill, and it is handed over to the Governor in Council to say what evidence shall be necessary, after it is specified in section 2, what must be proved to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State, who is the final judge in the matter. I do not think that is a fair way to legislate. I think also that the minister should be in a position to tell this House now whether or not it is necessary for the applicant to go before the court personally, or whether it is absolutely necessary that he should produce evidence by affidavit or otherwise. It would perhaps be better for the Secretary of State if all applications were compelled to appear before the judge, because then there would be no doubt that, as a rule, we were getting fairly good men as citizens; but to leave the matter in doubt or to the discretion of judges, who

have whims at times, even if they are judges, is not the best thing to do. One judge will say:	You must bring your
applicant to court, and another will say: Affidavits only are necessary. The minister says that he will regulate the matter by Order in Council. I say that he should regulate it by statute, so that every person will know what he has to do. I do not agree with other hon. gentlemen who say that a certificate of naturalization can be obtained by the ordinary man by simply posting up a notice. I am positive that, in every case which comes before the courts, it will be necessary to have a solicitor, because no layman will go into a court and undertake to prove to the satisfaction of a judge that the applicant is a fit and proper person to became a citizen of this country. .
I would also like to point out to the minister what to my mind will possibly cause some trouble. Between subsection c and subsection d in regard to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and subsection h in regard to Saskatchewan and Alberta. While the minister says that the evidence shall be viva voce in court, the adjudicature rules of Alberta and Saskatchewan say that all the evidence that is necessary in chambers is by affidavits. If you are going to regulate the matter by Order in Council, you will have to be very careful to do it properly. I am against any legislation, the most important points of which are made by the Governor in Council. We ought to know just how we stand in regard to section 21.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As the provision
stands to-day, it is on all fours with the provision of any law that creates a right dependent upon the existence of certain facts. We have pretty well-known rules and laws of evidence, and a man goes before the court to prove the facts which are essential to the existence of his rights. We assume that the judge knows what is sufficient evidence to satisfy him of the truth of those facts. I am a little puzzled to see why it should be thought necessary to make a special law of evidence for this particular situation.


William F. Carroll: I am not asking the minister to make a special law of evidence. I want him to make a law that will be uniform throughout Canada and that will say in what manner the evidence shall be submitted to the courts.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Supposing that no regulations should be made, an applicant will have to prove before the court that he meets the requirements of section 2, and the court will hear the evidence; and if the court is satisfied that he has proved the facts, the court will so decide. Why it should !be necessary specifically to decide some special law of evidence for this particular kind of a right, I have some difficulty in seeing. 1 understand that, under the old system, where the only person whom a man had to satisfy was a commissioner or any one authorized to take an oath, it might have been thought necessary to prescribe just what would be sufficient, because we were not submitting the decision to a court. Now we are leaving the court to determine whether a man who comes before it, alleging particular facts, has proved them or not, and it will be a very difficult matter for us to make a special law of evidence for this particular matter and one that would apply to the different systems that may exist in the different provinces. Are we not just as safe with regard to proof of this sort of facts as with regard to any other, namely, to leave them to be determined by a court upon sufficient evidence adduced before it?


William F. Carroll: What about bringing
the applicant into court? Are we not entitled to know from the minister and on the face of the statute when it is desirable to make the applicant appear in the court, and when he may be exempted from so doing?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is a question, as 1
said before, of proving that the applicant has certain qualifications. There are cases where it may be quite possible fully to establish that to the satisfaction of the court without a man appearing before the court. There are cases where it may npt be possible for the men to come to court. There are all the circumstances that apply with regard to every person, to every case and to every witness required to appear. All these cir umstances will appear here as they appear in every other case; and it may or may not be necessary, according to the circumstances, that the man should appear. What has to be relied upon is this, that the judge hears evidence to prove these facts, and he decides whether he has heard sufficient evidence and is 'convinced of these facts or not. We are not trusting him any further with regard to the determination of these particular facts, upon whicu this particular privilege depends,
than we are trusting him with regard to enforcement of any right whatever. Why is it necessary that we should get down to the very minutiae, and endeavour to devise a system that will provide exactly what shall be proved and provide it for every possible case without regard to differences of circumstances?
I confess I do not quite follow the reasons that lead hon. members to ihink that we should have some special prescription in this regard. I would say that a man must appear if, in order to the determination to the satisfaction of the judge that he has the necessary qualifications, the judge finds that it is necessary that he should examine him personally. If the fitness of the applicant can be established by absolutely reliable evidence to the satisfaction of the judge, I do not know that it would be wise to put in an absolute requirement that the man must appear. The moment we put down an absolute requirement that the man must appear we shall have to begin to make provision for the cases which are the exceptions, unless we want to rule out every man who, for one reason or another, no matter how imperative that reason may be, is under the impossibility of going to the court at the time at which he desires to become naturalized.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think I understand the ground the minister is taking, but, nevertheless, there is a lot in the contention of the hon. member for Cape Breton. If the minister had had much experience in the naturalization of citizens he would understand more clearly the point made by the hon. member for South Cape Breton; but we know that the minister has been removed from ordinary earthly scenes for a long time.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I used to naturalize
people myself.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Every solicitor in this
House who has had experience in this business knows that up to three or four years ago practically the only thing required in the courts of Canada to admit a person to be naturalized was the ordinary statutory affidavit that he had resided in Canada for three years and a certificate of a justice of the peace that, to his knowledge, there was no good reason why he should not be admitted to the rights of citizenship. Three or four years ago a judge, I think in Ontario, made an objection, he was not satisfied, he wanted the applicant brought before him and he wanted further evi-

denee. I do not know what it may be in the West, but in the eastern portion of Canada there has been a very unsatisfactory state of practice regarding these naturalization matters. Some judges have relied upon the old practice, all they want is the statutory affidavit. Others want a sort of supporting affidavit and others demand that the applicant must appear before them in person. Personally it is my opinion that the applicant should come before the court in person. We know how easy it is to get affidavits. Men sign affidavits without realizing exactly their purport. We know how easily you can get affidavits from men-and we might as well talk plainly, we know that ' the great majority of these men are naturalized a little before election time and there is then every reason in the world why some persons should make affidavits of the good character and fitness of applicants for naturalization. I do believe that there has been a great scandal in many portions of Canada, especially in the big cities, and I am not now charging one or the other political party. At least, 1 think I am safe in saying that hundreds of aliens have been naturalized without really knowing the meaning of the word, and without very much evidence having been produced in the courts. My friend will observe that he is making a new departure in this, a new test, because the applicant now must prove not only his residence in Canada for five years or his service in the. country for five years, but also that he is of good character and that he has an adequate knowledge of either the English or French language. I do not know how any judge can satisfy himself that an applicant possesses an adequate knowledge .of English or French without bringing him into court, and I think the minister would do well to consider this. I would suggest that it be put in the law that the applicant must appear before the court and must satisfy the court by viva voce testimony that he frdflls the requirements of section 2. Then at least we would be satisfied that there would not be much fraud regarding naturalization. No person is injured, the alien himself is not injured; and he ought not to be naturalized unless he fulfils the requirements, and that is the only way in which a judge, can really intelligently satisfy himself that the man possesses the requirements.	[DOT]
I notice that new section 19 of the Act reads:
In New Brunswick the application shall be made to the Supreme Court, during- its sittings in the county in which the alien resides, or to the circuit court, as the case may be, in such county, or to the county court having jurisdiction in such county.
That was all right under the law of New Brunswick as it existed at the time the Naturalization Act was passed, but there has been a great change in our courts in the last three or four years. The Supreme Court now consists of practically three different courts, almost four different courts. In the first place, there is a court of appeal, which consists of three judges of the Supreme Qourt. Then there is the Supreme Court, Chancery division, which consists of three judges sitting singly, taking a certain rota. The Supreme Court of Appeal, the Appellate division, meets together in the capital of the province. The Supreme Court as a Chancery division meets in different portions of the province. Then there is the King's Bench division, the judges of which go on circuit and sit in every portion of the province. It seems to me that this is broad enough to allow an application to be made to the Appellate Court. I do not think that is good practice, and it would be well to change it. Neither do I think it would be proper to apply to the Chancery division of our Supreme Court. I think it should be confined to what we call circuit courts, and county courts.


William F. Carroll: With reference to section . 21, the minister says that this Act should not prescribe the evidence required. That is one of the things I am finding fault with in this section 21. Section 20 is well defined as to what the Secretary of State has to do and what has to be proved before him, and, I presume, before the judge; but section 21 says:
The applicant shall produce to the court such evidence that he is qualified and fit to be naturalized under the provisions of this Act as may be required by the court, subject to such regulations as may be made hereunder.
Why subject to such regulations as may be made by the Governor in Council? If it is right to make regulations- regarding evidence, etc., by Order in Council, why not make them by Statute?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Does the hon. member suggest that we should strike that out?


William F. Carroll: I would say so.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am quite prepared
to consider that suggestion. What seemed to us was that it might be possible for

the Governor in Council to make regulations taking into consideration conditions in different localities which it would be very difficult to introduce into a Statute. Of course I may misapprehend the effect of the section, but I would take it to be perfectly clear that neither the judge should require nor the Governor in Council make any regulations which would alter in the slightest what is to be proved. That is cle-aTly defined by section 2. Section 2 tells	us what	is	required	in	orderthat	he be	a	person	fit and
qualified. As to what is to be proved, I think that is perfectly clear. It may not be impossible, but it is a very difficult thing to lay down in precise terms a definition of the exact manner in which the evidence should be given and which would be of easy application in every locality. What was in contemplation was merely such regulations with regard to the manner of making proof as the conditions of different places might show to be necessary.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Just to show that the minister has not thought this out sufficiently, let me ask him a question. What would he think of a proposition that a judge should decide criminal cases on affidavits? Why half or three-quarters of all the evidence given in the court on all matters is prescribed by statute. You can prove it by evidence in court or by affidavit. I think the minister is labouring under a misapprehension, I think it is the very thing he should do.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman
says that in some cases it is proved by evidence in court and in some cases by affidavit.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Parliament mentions the cases.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We state here that it
shall be proved by evidence in court.


William F. Carroll: What kind of evidence?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The other hon. gentleman did not suggest that we specify in every case what kind of evidence. If I say a man is entitled to sue a man for goods, do I say that he shall bring five or six witnesses or bring an affidavit?


William F. Carroll: You should provide that it should be either vive voce evidence or by affidavit.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The proposition of the hon. gentleman is that when you enact that a person under certain conditions shall be
entitled to certain rights, and shall be called upon to prove those conditions by evidence, it becomes necessary for us to specify what kind of evidence must be given. I confess that I would be puzzled to lay my finger on any law making special definition for every kind of case, or what shall be sufficient evidence and how that evidence shall be made. The court is sitting to determine whether John Smith 'meets the requirements of section 2 and the court is told that that shall be established by such evi-4 p. m. dence as is required to satisfy the court. Surely the court will proceed according to the ordinary laws of evidence, and I myself will not suppose for a moment that under that section the judge would be entitled to say, I will take an affidavit.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to tell my hon. friend that it has been done for the last four or five years.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have been going on under a law the direct opposite of this law. Up to the present the law did prescribe just exactly what you had to do; it only required you to satisfy the commissioner that took the oath; it did not require you to satisfy the judge. We think that a man should prove these facts before the court just as he proves any other facts.


John Hampden Burnham: Might I ask whether
the minister has taken note of the fact that it has been quite possible-it has actually been done-for a whole host of men who did not know anything about the whole transaction themselves to have affidavits cooked up for them and put into, court and unless objections were filed by a certain date these men were allowed to get their naturalization papers. Consequently, there has been wholesale fraud of the most absurd sort. Are we to' understand that under the present Act the applicant must appear in person? If he does not, I know there will be scores of cases such as I have described, for this country is full of fraud.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. member has
certainly very clearly described the very undesirable condition of affairs that we desire to remedy. Whether it is impossible to remedy that condition without requiring that in every case every man must come to the court seems to me to be another question. It has been suggested that it is not possible to know that a man has an adequate knowledge of both languages

if he does not come to court. If with regard to some particular person the right hon. leader of the Opposition came before a court in a position to establish that he knew the man intimately and that that man had a perfect knowledge of the English language, would anybody doubt that that was proved? If you have credible witnesses in a position to know all the facts, and there are no circumstances giving rise to any suspicion because of the nonappearance of the individual seeking naturalization, personally I would be disposed to think that you had sufficient proof of the facts. Where I think you get the guarantee against fraud is in the requirements that the court shall hear the evidence whatever it is, and determine its sufficiency. The evils that the hon. member has so forcibly pointed out resulted from the fact that if I alone, or a bunch of 400 of us, wanted to be naturalized, we could make an affidavit or affidavits before a commissioner whose entire power was to take oaths, and, if he was satisfied to give each one of us a certificate, at the end of a certain period of time, during which notice had been posted up, all that the judge could do was to ask his clerk: Is there opposition to any of these? And, if the clerk said, no, then, under the law, the judge must issue the certificates. The law was imperative on that point. We are changing all that, and in future it is not a commissioner who takes affidavits that the individual has to satisfy; he has to go to court, just as if he were going to sue you or me, and has to prove the essential facts that show him to be a fit and qualified person, and if the judge is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence justifying him in saying that the facts are proved, he can then so decide. It seems to me that to ask us in this statute to prescribe just what will be sufficient evidence, exposes us to creating a situation where, on the one hand, a judge will be bound to say that certain evidence is sufficient, even though he has the very best reasons for believing that he ought to call for something further; and, on the other hand, it would be compelling the judge to require in every case something that, in a large number of the cases that come before him, may be entirely unnecessary for the convincing of him of the truth of the facts. The judge will have to appreciate the evidence as he appreciates evidence in regard to other facte, and we 
have to trust him to appreciate it honestly and not to decide that the man has proved these facts unless he has proved them as he would prove any facts in an action between parties.


Mr. DEVLIN:: Speaking more particularly of the province of Quebec, if there is no opposition to the application for naturalization, would the ordinary laws of evidence apply as those which referred to ex parte and default cases ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Whether there is opposition or whether there is not ?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: In a case where there is no opposition.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In both cases the gentleman will have to produce before the courts such evidence as the courts will require to satisfy them that the statements are true. We do not undertake to say that an affidavit will be sufficient. We require, whether ex parte or whether there is opposition, that there shall be evidence produced before the courts such as the judge requires to satisfy him of the truth of the statements.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Where the case is ex parte, the judge may receive an affidavit and that would be declared to be sufficient if the judge is satisfied that the affidavit contains the truth.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I take it, in the absence of a provision enabling the judge to take affidavits, he should require the evidence to be produced before him. If, in ex parte cases, we get a judgment on an affidavit, it is because there is a statute saying that you may get judgment on that affidavit. We are not making any such provision here. We require the matter to be proved before the court to the satisfaction of the judge.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why not say that proof shall be by affidavit or otherwise as the judge may decide ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If it is thought desirable that we should make that provision, possibly we might do so, but, in doing that, we are getting back to the dangers that we are trying to avoid. We all know that a man will sit down and sign an affidavit, and sign it in perfect good faith, believing he is telling the absolute truth, it will be drawn for him by a gentleman also in good faith and yet, do we not know that in many cases if that same gentleman was brought into court if he stated these things to the judge and if the judge put a question

to him it would turn out that one of the statements was quite inaccurate. It seems to me that all we are discussing is whether there should be some special law about the evidence on these facts. These are not very complicated facts.


John Hampden Burnham: Is it not usual to crossexamine on an affidavit ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If we prescribe, as suggested, that a judge may decide on an affidavit, the affidavit is a document that is drawn up, signed and sworn to before it is brought into court, it is laid before the judge and he reads it. If the judge is entitled to decide upon the affidavit he will decide on that affidavit without asking any questions. If the facts may be proved on affidavit I do not see that there will be any necessity for the applicant being present in court to be questioned.


William F. Carroll: Then why have you allowed the application to be made in chambers in Alberta and Saskatchewan where all the work is done by affidavit.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have taken the
courts that are prescribed in the existing law. And I quite admit that so far as the enumeration of the courts is concerned1 this law is a reproduction. At the first glance it seems to me that the answer to the suggestion of the hon. member who has just spoken is very similar to that which must be made to the suggestion of the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin), namely, that the law which prescribes that in certain cases of applications which must he heard in chambers an affidavit may be taken would not govern the evidence of these facts under this law. It is true that we give jurisdiction in chambers but we constitute the judge sitting in chambers a court for this purpose and we prescribe that the evidence shall be produced in court. Whether he is sitting in his chambers or on the bench, the judge in question for the purpose of this Act is a court. He proceeds to deal with the matter as a court. If the result should be that the requirements should not be identical in the different provinces, as with other matters that we deal with here, they are left under the law and the decision of the provincial courts. The procedure will be governed by the laws applicable in oases of this kind and we run no great risks that the results will turn out to be bad. Will we not be as safe in trusting to the established rules of the courts in the different provinces as we
would be in sitting down here and trying to devise an absolute rule that will be equally workable, practicable and desirable in every province? We should, I think, be disposed to so believe that when we remem.-ber that up to the present moment all that we have required in this regard has been an affidavit such as has been described by my hon. friend from West Peterborough (Mr. Bum-ham). It seemed to me that we were providing an improvement with regard to the evidence upon this subject. I thought we were going farther, that we were making a step in advance when we required1 that the evidence should be produced before the court and that it should be satisfactory to the judge. Would we not at least be safe in trying that and seeing how it works out rather than trusting to an affidavit taken before any commissioner in any comer of the country? If difficulties arise in its operation it is a matter of a very simple amendment. It would seem to me that hon. members are a little too apprehensive of difficulty arising in this regard. After all, our judges as a whole-they may have, it has been said in this discussion, caprices once in a while-may be trusted to decide when facts and such simple facts as these, are proved and when they are not. Should we not leave it to the judgment of the judges and let them be responsible for pronouncing their decision? We most assuredly are providing safeguards much greater than any we have had up to the present time. If, in the application of this law, difficulties should arise, we are here every year and we will be able to remedy them. I think this is a safer course than to try now in advance to lay down an absolute rule.


John Hampden Burnham: In case I have objection to the evidence that is being submitted in the form of an affidavit as to any persons applying for naturalization, how am I to offer evidence to contradict that received from these applicants?


Charles Joseph Doherty: When the application
has been filed in the office of the court and when it has been posted up for the necessary time, it will be necessary for the applicant, or for somebody acting for him, to go before the court or the judge and prove there by the production of evidence, either by the production of the individual himself or by the testimony that carries conviction to the judge's mind, or by both, that the individual in question possesses the qualifications	re-

quired. It would be within the power of the judge to say that the applicant must be produced in court, but if he proves his qualifications by manifestly competent testimony, to the satisfaction of the judge, it seems to me that it would be unfortunate to make an absolute rule that the court cannot give its decision, even if the court is absolutely satisfied, without the applicant being present.


William F. Carroll: 'Should there not be a uniform rule for taking evidence under an Act of this kind, whether it be by affidavit or otherwise?


Mr. MIOHAUD:: I remember lately making application for parties who wished to become British subjects, and as a commissioner I had to certify that I knew the applicants, that I was aware they lived in Canada for so many years, and that I was satisfied they would be good British subjects. There was no verbal evidence required.
'Mr. DOHERTY:	That was the system,
but we are changing it, and that was an excellent system so long as the hon. member was the commissioner; but unfortunately every commissioner is not as qualified as my hon. friend is. It seems better to require that the decision whether a man has proved his qualifications or not should be left to the judges rather than to men; who may happen to have authority to administer an oath. I do not want to cast a reflection on any class, but it is perfectly natural that when that authority is spread over such an immensely wide class, there should be some among them who would not be very scrupulous. We want to get the guarantee of the decision of an established and recognized court.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Where a party opposing
an application for naturalization is compelled to engage a lawyer, and the court declares against the applicant, would the court have the right to give costs against the applicant?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no provision empowering the court to give costs. I think it would be most objectionable to provide here for payment of costs outside of any court fees that may be required.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I agree with the minister.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We do not want to put forward an incentive to people to oppose applications on the chance of making a

bill of costs out of some unfortunate chap who may not succeed in proving his qualifications. I think we had better let the lawyers take care of 'this matter of costs for themselves.


John Hampden Burnham: I am aware of circumstances which have been very painful in the matter of loading up the voters' lists. If you make a man, especially a foreigner, appear in person and be liable to crossexamination, and you ask him where he came from, when he came, and all the rest of it, and he knows he is deliberately making a statement which may involve him in a criminal charge, he will back out before he will lie. But when it comes to simply presenting to a judge or other commissioner, I do not care how eminent, a lot of affidavits, and the deponents are not known and there is no way of getting back at them, the judge must adopt some uniform method and he must say: I know nothing on earth about these people; I must not presuppose fraud. And so he passes these men through because they have their papers properly presented, and lo and behold you have your voters' lists loaded up with a lot of foreigners, whom nobody knows anything about. Suppose you attempt to get hold of some of these fellows afterwards, they will say: we know nothing at all about it; and a jury would say: what is the use of trying to convict those men, because if interest is the essence of crime they know nothing about it; why not get the blackguards who are behind this fraud? If you do not have them present in court to face the fact that they are deliberately lying, you will make nothing out of it.


Mr. PROULX:: I do not think it would be any hardship to compel an applicant for naturalization to appear in court and to be liable to cross-examination. Naturalization will happen only once in a lifetime, and it is sufficiently important that a man who wants to be a British subject should come to court.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall be pleased to give consideration to the suggestion.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The more we discuss
this .Bill the more complicated it becomes. The statement of the minister now is that proof by affidavit cannot be submitted, and unless the judge will break away from what he understands the force of the Act to be, the proof must be by moral testimony before a judge, although the minister says thp

judge might possibly say that he would leceive proof by affidavit. Tiiose of us) who know something about the law of evidence are satisfied that there is no such thing known to the common law of evidence as proof by affidavit, and when any of us go before a judge under this new Act, the judge may throw us back on our common law rights and compel us to bring the witness before him. That is a new departure, and it will involve great labour and trouble. After all, ninety-nine iper cent of the foreigners in this country look upon naturalization as a simple matter which is not of a tremendous lot of advantage to them, and unless the procedure is simple they will not apply at all. The reason we had to go to court before was because we got an order of the corurt under the seal of the court, and that was ail that was required. I would point out to the minister that a judge, sitting in chambers, jfe just as capable of deciding upon evidence as if he were sitting in court, ahd I would ask the minister to leave the taking of evidence open to a judge, because you can get a judge easier and there will not be the delay that would he entailed if you have to apply to a court. There is no status in the court for this sort of application; it cannot go on the docket, and the judge will not likely take it up until other cases are disposed of. In our part of the country, if the applicant would go before a county court judge wherever he can get him, it would simplify the matter very much.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That suggestion is very deserving of consideration.
Progress reported.



CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY AGREEMENT.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 214, respecting the Canadian Northern Railway system, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 15-declaratory:
Frank Oliver: I wish to move an amendment of which I gave notice when the resolutions were under consideration. I have already taken perhaps too much time to point out the peculiar position in which the provinces are placed by this legislation in so far as they have become responsible for the money necessary to construct branch lines which are taken into this system. I will not repeat the views I have expressed
already; I merely wish to deal with one feature of this section. The section declares that certain railway lines which are chartered and aided by the provincial governments, by being declared works for the general advantage of Canada are brought immediately under the jurisdiction of this Parliament, and hence under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission. So far as the lines in Alberta and Saskatchewan are concerned, there is no objection, so faT as I am aware, to these lines being brought under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission for the regulation of traffic upon them. But the declaration under section 15 not only brings these lines under the control of the Railway Commission after they have become available for traffic purposes, to which there is no objection by the provincial governments or by the people of the provinces, but it brings the enterprises themselves under the control of the Railway Commission and of this Government, while they are still in course of construction. The enterprises for which the provincial governments have assumed the entire financial responsibility are to be by this provision lifted ibodily out of the control of the provincial government which has provided the aid to build the road, for the purpose of accommodating certain people in that part of the country, and they are vested in the Railway Commission and the federal Government. It may be' that this Government, which is the court of appeal from the Railway Commission, will be just as considerate of the rights and interests of the people affected by the construction of these lines as would be the provincial government, but it is also possible that would not be the case. The fact that the provincial government has guaranteed bonds for the construction of a line between certain points, following a certain route, intended to meet the needs of certain people, gives the provincial government the right to see that that route is followed, that the termini shall be as arranged for, and that the locality intended to be benefited shall be benefited. When that authority is taken out of the province and vested in the Railway Commission and this Government, it is quite possible different views may prevail, and the Railway Commission may make orders different from the intent of the provincial government that found the money to build the road, and the Dominion Government on appeal may sustain the attitude of the Railway Commission. To my mind that is not fair, and I do not think it will work out in the

best interests of the people of the country. In order that I may have the matter before the House in proper shape, I desire to move:
That following section 15 in the Bill there shall be this proviso:
Provided that in the case of any line of the Canadian Northern Western Railway Company, or of the Canadian Northern Saskatchewan Railway Company, now or hereafter constructed in the provinces of Saskatchewan or Alberta, which has received aid by way of bonus, loan or guarantee from the government of the province in which said line is situated, the said line shall not be held to have been declared a work for the general advantage of Canada until it has been taken over for operation by the Canadian Northern Railway Company to be operated as a part of its system, and only so long as it is operated as a part of the system.
That is a fair proposition. The main intent of the establishment of the Railway Commission was to regulate and control traffic and rates for traffic. It was not primarily intended to include the providing of conditions for route or initial construction. We are not only willing but anxious to have all the advantage that can be secured from control by the Railway Commission over rates and traffic, but we do not desire that the rights and interests of the provinces, which have mortgaged themselves heavily in order to secure accommodation for the people of those provinces, should be abrogated as they are abrogated by section 15 of the Bill.


Arthur Meighen: It has been the desire of the Government, in relation to this phase of the question, in declaring the roads to be for the general advantage of Canada, to meet the wishes of the government of these provinces who have, as the hon. member states, mortgaged themselves to secure the construction of lines which are more or less of a provincial character. At the same time the amendment moved by the hon. member would no1^ in my opinion, be effective for the end he has in view. I have not seen the amendment, but it appears to read that two of the roads declared to be for the general advantage of Canada shall not be so declared until they are in active operation as part of the Canadian Northern system, and shall cease to be so declared when they cease to be in such actual operation. If that were to be inserted in clause 15, I am disposed to think in the first place that the proviso would be ineffective because it purports to put a limitation upon the effect of the

declaration. It does not propose to postpone the effect of the declaration, it simply says that notwithstanding the declaration that they are for the general advantage of Canada, two of the lines shall be held not to be for the general advantage of Canada until they are in operation, and that after they cease to be in operation as part of the Canadian Northern system, if they ever do, they shall revert and be provincial lines again. That provision would, I think, be ineffective constitutionally, even in so far as it postpones the effect of this declaration, until the lines were in operation; il would undoubtedly be ineffective constitutionally in so far as it purports to reverse the condition and bring the roads back into the provincial status when they cease to be in operation. I believe it will be admitted: universally that the effect of the British' North America Act is that if once you declare any work to be a work' for the general advantage of Canada it becomes a work for the general advantage of Canada and subject as such to all the effects of the British North America Act. There is no power in the British North America Act given to the Parliament of Canada, after it has made that declaration, to reverse it. There is no power to bring back a work, that has been declared for the general advantage of Canada, into the status of a provincial institution.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Could it not be transferred?


Arthur Meighen: No; under what authority? We are empowered by the British North America Act to declare a provincial work for the general advantage of Canada, and it having reached that status, we have no power to put it back again.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: A company so declared has no greater power than if it were originally created by Parliament. Has it any greater power?


Arthur Meighen: No, I do not say it
has.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Supposing that we
create an entity in the shape of a corporation under this Parliament, could we not legislate to transfer all its rights to a local corporation?


Arthur Meighen: To a province?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: To an entity created
by a provincial statute.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps so-that is not the point.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We certainly could.


Arthur Meighen: I think we certainly
could not, if I understand the hon. gentleman.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I want to be perfectly clear. If we create an entity in the shape of a corporation and give it all the power that this Parliament can give it, it is certainly then as strong as a local corporation would be after we had said that it was for the general benefit of Canada, that is our own corporation. Suppose there is also a corporation doing business say in Ontario. It has its origin . and powers from the Legislature of Ontario. Those two corporations want to get together. The Dominion corporation wants to go out of business and to merge into the provincial corporation. Would it not be within our power then to enable the Dominion entity to go out of business altogether and merge into the provincial entity?


Arthur Meighen: That might be.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is what I say.
Then we could do away with an entity which once was enjoying the powers of this Legislature; we could cancel that and annihilate it, so to speak, and let it go into the other corporation.


Arthur Meighen: We could annihilate
it as a Dominion institution. We could cancel its charter; hut once it is annihilated how will it go into anything?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My hon. friend must
not hang on to the word ' annihilate '; it was improvidently used; I did not mean that. We could put it out of existence so far as being a corporation with powers from this Parliament is concerned, and let it merge into the other.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
will agree with me when I state it this way:	If we once erect a company ;nto
the status of a Dominion company it must, after that, read its powers under our Railway Act; so in the case of a railway company it must interpret its corporate powers under the general Railway Act of Canada. If we once take that step either by original legislation here incorporating companies or by declaring a company, incorporated provincially, to be for the general advantage of Canada, then we never more can reverse the operation and" make it read its corporate powers in the light of a provincial general Act or in the light of a provincial special Act.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Except as I have
stated, I think.


Arthur Meighen: We could, of course,
after giving it certain powers by Dominion legislation, curtail or abrogate those powers; but we could never bring it under the jurisdiction of an Act of the province as opposed to the general jurisdiction of an Act of the Dominion, nor could we, if I am right, once we have declared a provincial company to be for the general advantage of Canada, ever afterwards degrade the company, if I may use the term, or turn it back under the jurisdiction of a provincial legislature.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does my hon. friend contend that under the clauses of the Act you can take jurisdiction over a company? I do not read the Act in this way. We can not take jurisdiction over a company and transform a provincial company into a federal. Our jurisdiction is to control the company, a different proposition.


Arthur Meighen: It goes further. Section 6 of the Railway Act, read in the light of decision of the Privy Council in the Bell Telephone case, will convince my hon. friend that the law goes further than that, that not only that the company's works and undertakings are under the jurisdiction of the Dominion, but it must read its corporate powers from our Railway Act, or from our general Act, or from our special Act, as the ease may be, and no longer read its corporate powers as a company from any provincial Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: I admit that the moment we have declared the work created by a provincial company to be for the general advantage of Canada, as we have clearly the power to do, all the powers which have created that work certainly come under our jurisdiction and we become paramount to that extent.


Arthur Meighen: And the company comes under our jurisdiction to that extent. That being the case, the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) would fail to meet its end. It is subject to a still additional objection. If it were passed in that form, there would doubtless

come the question later on as to whether the road was completed or not, whether it was constructed or not, and there is a sense in which a road is never constructed. If a mile remained to be built, or if the legislature added to the charter power to add another ten miles, the effect might be that the road could never come under the jurisdiction of this Parliament. Consequently, whatever may be done in the way of meeting the wishes of the province in this regard will have to be done in such a way that the Governor in Council shall have power to bring the railways under the operation of the Eailway Act, to bring them within the system of making them Dominion companies at such time as shall be defined generally; but in such a way that it shall be within the power of the Governor in Council to declare at will that the time has arrived.
I propose, in the absence of the First Minister, to substitute another wording for clause 15. Perhaps the amendment of the hon. member had better be disposed of first. I am quite aware that a great deal can be said in favour of the jurisdiction of the province being preserved while the road is under construction. Under the circumstances stated by the hon. member for Edmonton, namely that the construction of the road is being provided for out of funds guaranteed by these provinces or out of subsidies given by them in whole or to a great extent, no particular object, at all events I think no sufficient object, would be served by taking them under our jurisdiction until the roads are ready for operation.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend has expressed his disapproval of the amendment I have had the honour to offer, in points of detail but not in points of principle. He admits that it is right and proper that the province should have control during construction, but he says that it is not possible under the terms of my amendment. I am compelled to say that he has by no means convinced me, so far as his argument has gone, that the terms of my amendment are outside that which is fair and right or outside the possibility of working practicability or outside the limits of the constitution. Of course, I cannot force my views upon the House and I do not intend to spend any great length of time in attempting to do so, but I may say that my hon. friend has not offered what appears to me to be any convincing argument against the Government adopting the principle that I have put forward in such terms as may be

apt and within the limits of the constitution. If a thing is right it is the business of the Government, in making an Act, to make provision to meet that which is right when it has been brought to their attention. In regard to my hon. friend's suggestion, I find just as much fault -with his amendment as he finds with mine. If I understand it in one way, I find fault with it; and if I understand it in another way, I am perfectly satisfied with it. But I shall have to ask my hon. friend just how it is to be interpreted. When he speaks of the 'works and undertaking ' of the Canadian Northern Western Company, does he desire to express the measure of those lines that are now under guarantee, or does he desire to express the limit of the lines that are under charter?


Arthur Meighen: The term ' works and undertaking ' has been interpreted in the courts more than once, and has a well defined legal meaning. If the company adds to its line in any way in the future, then that addition would immediately come under the words ' works and undertaking.'


Frank Oliver: Take the line chartered
from Edmonton to the boundary of the province, a distance say of about three hundred and fifty miles. Under the terms of my hon. friend's proposal, would it be possible to declare the works of the Canadian Northern Western Railway Company works for the general advantage of Canada before that line was completed to the boundary of the province?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. As far as the possibility is concerned we could pass this today and declare the whole line for the advantage of Canada to-morrow.


Frank Oliver: There are 66.31 miles of
the Canadian Northwestern Railway Company under provincial guarantee.


Mr. BORDEN:: Consisting of different
lines in different parts of the province, but all under one charter?


Frank Oliver: Yes, but having no physical connection except through the Canadian Northern Railway system. Am I
5 p.m. to understand that this proposal means that subsection 5 will not be brought into effect until the whole of these guaranteed lines have been completed?


Robert Laird Borden: I think the situation is a very plain one. The only difficulty that arises is that the power of making the

declaration under the British , North America Act is invested with certain limitations. My hon. friend says that there is a provincial charter which embraces a number of roads not physically connected wiHh each other but all connected1 with the Canadian Northern railway system. I do not wish to trench upon provincial jurisdiction in any way except so far as may be absolutely essential for the working out of this arrangement. As 1 understand it, the desire of the provincial autnoriues is that during construction those roads shall not !be brought under federal jurisdiction, but that immediately after operation begins they shall be brought undOT federal jurisdiction.	The difficulty that
presents itself is this: Inasmuch as those roads are all embraced within one charter we do not conceive that it is possible to make the provision which my hon. friend suggests for the reason that it is' not competent for this Parliament under the British North America Act to say that irpm time to time a certain part of the undertaking of a company shall be subject to federal jurisdiction.	We do not understand that that is possible. We are ready to proceed either in one way or the other. We are ready to say that these roads shall 'be brought under federal jurisdiction at once during the period of construction or that they shall not be brought under federal jurisdiction until they have all been completed. One of these roads may be completed while others remain in course of construction, and in that case, according to the terms of this amendment, the Governor in Council could not under this statutory provision make the declaration until the whole had been completed; and, therefore, it would involve the disadvantage-1 am speaking from the provincial point, oi view-of keeping out of federal jurisdiction those roads which had been constructed till the rest were completed. Therefore, we have to deal with it in one or other of these ways, and I understand the wish and desire of the provinicai authorities is- that we should deal with it in this way. The third method which my hon. friend suggests and would like to see carried out is impracticable on account of constitutional limitations. However, I think there would be a remedy for the situation by the combined action in the future of the provincial legislature and this Parliament. I think that by action of the provincial legislature it would be 287
possible to select one of those roads which had been completed, and transfer it to another company for purposes of operation, and then for this Parliament to declare the undertaking of that company subject to the jurisdiction of the lederai Parliament and the Board of Kailway Commissioners.


Frank Oliver: Do I understand that the amendment suggested by the Solicitor General meets with the approval of the Prime Minister?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Frank Oliver: I have not got it clear in my mind yet whether it is intended to make the declaration upon the completion of the lines so far as they have been guaranteed, or upon the completion of the lines so far as they have been chartered. I take it that it is not the intention to make the declaration until the lines have been completed as far as they have been guaranteed. Am I correct in that?


Robert Laird Borden: Guaranteed by the provincial governments?


Frank Oliver: There are, with respect to all of these lines, 663 miles guaranteed, and all of these lines are more or less under construction. Is it proposed to make the declaration that these are works for the general advantage of Canada, as soon as the 663 miles are completed, or is it intended to make it before they are completed, or is it intended to defer the declaration until the lines, as far as they have been chartered, are completed?


Arthur Meighen: There is no difference of opinion, in so far as I have been able to find out from the representatives of the provincial governments, between the provincial governments and this Government as to the intended time of declaring these works respectively to be for the general advantage of 'Canada. At the same time, it is impossible to put into words anything that will place specific limitations upon the power of this Parliament. We have reserved to Parliament the power to declare the works and undertakings of the Canadian Northern Western, say, to be for the general advantage of Canada, although possibly one or more or all of the branches may not be completed. Otherwise, the intention, neither of the provincial governments nor of this Government, would be carried out. There might be, for example, 600 miles in operation and one or two other branches which had not been



started. We have reserved the right to declare them to be for the general advantage of Canada, when in the opinion of the Governor in Council, such a substantial portion of the line is ready for operation as to make the declaration a carrying out of the spirit of this provision.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is a very extraordinary power which is usually exercised by Parliament alone. Is there a precedent for the delegation of this power to the Governor in Council?


Robert Laird Borden: This is not a delegation; Parliament makes the declaration and leaves the date of the declaration to be fixed by the Governor in Council.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand that but it is the act of the Governor in Council that declares this particular work to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.


Arthur Meighen: No, all that the Governor in Council declares is that the railway is constructed and is open for operation. This Parliament declares that the work is an undertaking for the general advantage of Canada but postpones the proclamation of it until a time fixed by the Governor in Council.


Mr. ROGERS:: My hon. friend from
Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) asks if there is a precedent for such an amendment as the one provided by my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen). In so far as my knowledge of this matter goes, the objections raised by my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) are entirely imaginary. We have the precedent which my hon. friend asks for in the case of the province of Manitoba. In that province we experienced all the conditions in respect to the construction of branch lines years ago and every branch line that was guaranteed by the province, or which was undertaken to be constructed under .a pro-, vincial charter, was immediately declared by this Parliament to be a work for the general advantage of Canada and amalgamated with the Canadian Northern. My hon. friend speaks of the jurisdiction of the provinces, control of the Railway Commission in respect to traffic, of the enterprise being under the control of the province during construction and of making orders for location. All these conditions were imposed by this Parliament in the construction of the 'Manitoba lines of railway from 1901 on until to-day. Not only

did this Parliament declare every branch line that bad been guaranteed, iand that was built with the money of that province to be for the general benefit of. Canada, but in the legislation, as it was going through each year, a clause was added stating:
That before commencing the construction of the lines above mentioned the location thereof shall first be approved by the Governor in Council.
It wias under these restrictions, as my hon. friend would call them now, that all the lines in Manitoba were constructed and I do not think, there is anything at all 'in his suggestion that this Parliament is undertaking to restrict in any way the jurisdiction of the western provinces. On the contrary, I think that my hon. friend the Solicitor General has gone entirely too far in the proposal which he is making and I do not believe it is necessary. We did not find it necessary in our undertakings, when, as a member of the Government of the province of Manitoba, I was assisting in securing the construction of those lines. No conflict of interest arose and I do not anticipate that any conflict of interest will arise between the provinces and the Dominion in the present case. Therefore, I regard, the objections raised by the hon. member for Edmonton as being entirely imaginary and I do not think there is any necessity for the amendment as proposed on either side of the House in respect to the matter or as affecting the conditions under which we can secure branch lines to be built in any province in Canada.


Frank Oliver: While we are interested in the reminiscences of my hon. friend (Mr. Rogers), still they are not valuable in this connection. There are railway companies under construction in the province of Alberta, and we are dealing with railway companies which are chartered by the province and not by the Dominion.


Robert Rogers: Ours were the same.


Frank Oliver: Some of them were and some of them were not. There are railways being constructed in Alberta under the Canadian Northern charter and which are being aided by the provincial Government, lines to the length of 774 miles, and aided by guarantees to the amount of $11,000,000. These lines are under the jurisdiction of this Parliament and of the Railway Commission, and we are not bringing them into the question at all. But

in regard to the lines that are chartered by the province, aided entirely by the province, whatever may have been the experience in Manitoba is not to the point. The point is that we want to have the control of the results of the expenditure of our own money, so far as the accommodation of the people is concerned. If the relations between the Canadian Northern railway and the Government of Manitoba were such that satisfactory arrangements were always made in that province, it does not follow that the same conditions would prevail in other provinces. Certain things are right, and when they are right they are generally expedient, and the provincial Governments which have accepted such enormous financial responsibility on behalf of their people in order to secure railway advantages are entitled to all the measure of protection this Government can give them. The position stated by the Solicitor General and the Prime Minister simply amounts to this: we will consider the position of the provinces, and we will deal with that situation as we please under the terms of the Act. That is not very satisfactory, nor do I think it is compelled by a constitutional limitation. I am not a constitutional authority, I admit, but when I read the plain English of the British North America Act I find this:
Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada.
That is to say, the declaration may be made after completion as well as before completion. On the plain reading of the Act, it is certainly contemplated that works may be declared to be for the general advantage of Canada after they are completed, and I take it for granted they may be declared to be for the general advantage of Canada after they are completed, without declaring them to be for the general advantage of Canada before they are completed. Or this Parliament may declare a completed work to be for the general advantage of Canada when it would not so desire to declare an uncompleted work. I believe that my amendment is fair, and reasonable, and right, and if my object cannot be obtained in the form in which I have placed it before the House, there surely must be some other means of arriving at what is such an eminently fair and reasonable proposition. When a fair and reasonable proposition is placed before the Govern-287J
ment, and its fairness and reasonableness have to be admitted, if the Government is not able to accept that proposition it is their business to find a way by which what is fair and right can be embodied in the statutes.


Robert Laird Borden: It is perfectly true that
work can be declared, either before or after its completion, but the difficulty we find is that the proposal of my hon. friend would involve the possession by this Parliament of the power to declare that each mile of the road as it was completed should become a work for the general advantage of Canada. We do not think that this Parliament possesses that power. Therefore we have left the matter in such shape that the road during construction shall remain under the control of the provincial legislature.
Amendment (Mr. Oliver) negatived on division.


Arthur Meighen: I move that clause 15 be struck out and that the following be substituted therefor:
15. The works and undertakings of the following companies are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada viz.:
Canadian Northern Manitoba Railway Company ;
Irondale, Bancroft and Ottawa Railway Company ;
Marmora Railway and Mining Company;
Halifax and Southwestern Railway Company ;
Quebec and Lake St. John Railway Company.
2.	The works and undertakings of the Canadian Northern Western Railway Company are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.
3.	The works and undertakings of the Canadian Northern Saskatchewan Railway Company are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.
4.	The works and undertakings of the Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Company are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.
5.	Subsections 2, 3 and 4 shall respectively come into force on a day or days to be fixed in each case by proclamation of the Governor in Council published in the Canada Gazette, but such proclamation shall not in any case be made until after the Governor in Council shall have declared in each such case by Order in Council that the railway and undertaking of such company has been constructed and is open for operation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and new section substituted for section 15 in the Bill.
Bill reported.

Robert Laird Borden: With the consent of the House, may I be permitted to read some telegrams which have been sent respecting the appalling disaster to which reference was made in the House yesterday ?
The following is a telegram from His Majesty to His Royal Highness the Governor General:
London, 30th May, 1914.
I am deeply grieved at the awful disaster to the Empress of Ireland in which alas so many Canadians have lost their lives. The Queen and I assure you of our heartfelt sympathy with those who mourn for the loss of their relatives and friends.
(Sgd) George R.I.
A telegram from Queen Alexandra to His Royal Highness the Governor General:
London, May 30, 1914.
The terrible disaster that has occurred to the Atlantic liner, Empress of Ireland, in the St. Lawrence river grieves me more than I can say. Up to last night we had hoped in London that most if not all the lives had been saved, but this morning I learn that the first report was too true and that over 1,000 people had been drowned. I wish to express to you my intense sorrow in this awful catastrophe and beg of you kindly to see that my heartfelt sympathy may be conveyed to the relatives of all those who have perished.
(Sgd) Alexandra.
A telegram from the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies to His Royal Highness the Governor General:
London, 29th May, 1914.
Governor General,
Ottawa.
I have learned with the deepest regret of wreck of ss. Empress of Ireland and the disastrous loss of life which has occurred. Please take what steps as are possible to make known my sympathy with relatives in Canada of those who have perished.
(Sgd) Ilarccurt.
His Royal Highness the Governor General sent me the following telegram on the 29th instant:
Toronto, May 29, 1914.
Borden,
Ottawa, Ont.
On behalf of the Duchess and myself I desire to express to you our deep grief at the terrible disaster to the Empress of Ireland and our heartfelt sympathy with the families of those who have perished.
(Sgd) Arthur.
The following message has been transmitted through the office of the High Commissioner from His Serene Highness Prince Alexander of Teck:
Right Hon. R. L. Borden.
Have now received the following message from Prince Alexander of Teck:

' Grieved to hear of disaster Empress of Ireland. Kindly convey sympathy of Princess and myself with relatives of victims.
(Sgd) Teck.*
A telegram from the Prime Minister of New Zealand:
Dunedin, May 29, 1914.
Prime Minister,
Ottawa.
On behalf of Government and people of New Zealand desire express sincere sympathy with our sister dominion in appalling loss of life which has taken place in the foundering Empress of Ireland and our heartfelt condolence with relatives and friends of those who have perished.
(Sgd) Massey, Prime Minister.
To which the following reply has been sent:
Ottawa, 30th May, 1914.
Prime Minister,
Dunedin, New Zealand.
On behalf of Government and people of Canada I send our deep and sincere appreciation of your message and our profound sympathy for those in your dominion who have been bereaved by the loss of relatives and friends in this appalling disaster.
(Sgd) Borden.
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House adjourned at 5.37 p.m.
Monday, June 1, 1914.